BUSINESS BEFORE QUESTIONS

Canterbury City Council Bill (By Order)

Motion made, That the Lords amendments be now considered.

Hon. Members: Object.
	Lords amendments to be considered on Thursday 31 January at Two o'clock.

Leeds City Council Bill (By Order)

Motion made, That the Lords amendments be now considered.

Hon. Members: Object.
	Lords amendments to be considered on Thursday 31 January at Two o'clock.

Nottingham City Council Bill (By Order)

Motion made, That the Lords amendments be now considered.

Hon. Members: Object.
	Lords amendments to be considered on Thursday 31 January at Two o'clock..

Reading Borough Council Bill (By Order)

Motion made, That the Lords amendments be now considered.

Hon. Members: Object.
	Lords amendments to be considered on Thursday 31 January at Two o'clock.

City of London (Various Powers) Bill [Lords] (By Order)

Second Reading opposed and deferred until Tuesday 29 January (Standing Order No. 20).

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE

The Secretary of State was asked—

Burma

Jonathan Ashworth: What recent reports he has received on the security situation in Rakhine state, Burma; and if he will make a statement.

Hugo Swire: I visited Rakhine state in December. I visited five camps for displaced people and spoke to local community and political leaders. The security situation appears to have stabilised, though I stressed to Burmese Ministers the importance of a long-term solution that will not leave communities permanently displaced.

Jonathan Ashworth: I am grateful to the Minister for that answer, and pleased that he has visited the camps in Rakhine state. I am sure that he will have seen reports in recent days that Rohingya refugees crossing the Andaman sea to Thailand have been captured by Thai officials and sold on to human traffickers. What urgent representations is he making to the Thai authorities on that matter, and will he give us an update on the situation?

Hugo Swire: The hon. Gentleman follows these matters closely, and he is referring to the 949 Rohingya in southern Thailand who were allegedly waiting for their escort to smuggle them across the border. It is worth saying that the embassy in Bangkok has raised the issue of the Rohingya with the appropriate Thai authorities, both bilaterally and through the European Commission, and that it continues to follow the issue closely, including in close conjunction with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.

Stephen Phillips: My right hon. Friend is well aware of the plight of the Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh. Will he update the House on the specific steps that the Government are taking, with the Burmese and Bangladeshi Governments, to ensure a permanent, stable future for those people?

Hugo Swire: My hon. and learned Friend makes a good point. My response can be divided quite neatly into two parts. First, in the short term, humanitarian access, co-ordination and security must be improved for the Rohingya people in Rakhine. I have seen that for myself and I am satisfied that that is happening. Secondly, in the longer term, those responsible for the violence must be held publicly to account for what they have done. Ultimately, the Burmese have to deal with the issue of citizenship, and that matter is being reviewed at the moment. The Bangladeshis need to play a better part in helping out those Rohingya who are on that side of the border.

Meg Munn: The continued suppression of minority ethnic groups in Burma is clearly incompatible with the development of a proper democracy there. We all wish to see such a democracy developing, but what are the Government doing through their contact with the Burmese to stress that we cannot continue to support democratic development and the development of trade without the Burmese addressing those important issues?

Hugo Swire: The situation in Burma is complex, as the hon. Lady will accept. The country is coming out of a period of military rule. We believe that the President has embarked on the right journey, although he could move more quickly to deliver some of the reforms. The solution to 10 out of the 11 outbreaks of violence has been a ceasefire, but we have not yet seen that happen in
	Kachin state. This Government are helping out, through the Department for International Development, by being the largest bilateral donor of aid. We have also had many exchanges involving Burmese parliamentarians coming here to Westminster. The more engagement that British parliamentarians have with the Burmese authorities to show them how we do things here, the better. Perhaps that might include you, Mr Speaker, if you were able to find time in your diary to show the Burmese what we do here at Westminster and show them what a true democracy can look like.

Valerie Vaz: Staying with Burma, is the Minister aware that the ceasefire in Kachin state has been breached, and that a village with 100 houses in it was burned today? Can he say what representations he is making to the Burmese Government to ask them to continue the ceasefire?

Hugo Swire: Yes I can. Indeed, not too long ago I made a statement about the situation in Kachin. We welcome what the President said about Kachin when he reiterated the Burmese Government’s stated commitment to a nationwide ceasefire and to peace building, although we do not recognise one or two other things he has said. It is important that there is a ceasefire in Kachin state and that the military in the area adheres to what the President is saying. It is also important, as I stressed when I was in Burma in December, that humanitarian aid gets to the people in Kachin.

Kerry McCarthy: Further to the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz), the Minister has noted the urgent and troubling situation in Kachin state, with the three civilian deaths reported last week and the military breaking a very short-lived ceasefire at the weekend. Will he tell us what discussions the Government have had not just with the Burmese authorities on the urgent need for peace talks but with the EU and the United Nations on his assessment of whether the resumed attacks bring into doubt the Burmese Government’s commitment to a ceasefire and their control over the military?

Hugo Swire: The hon. Lady raises a good point. There is a genuine question about control over the Burmese military; and until the Burmese military is brought under control, the peace process in Burma and the journey on which the President has embarked will be under serious question. We are anxious to help with what is going on in Kachin: we have increased our humanitarian aid, which now totals £3.5 million—as far as I am aware, the biggest donation in that area from any country. We are also one of the three bilateral members of the peace donor support group, which represents most of the major donors in Burma and is working closely with the Government to move from the ceasefire arrangements to political dialogue with all of Burma’s ethnic groups.

Women's Health and Education (Afghanistan and Pakistan)

David Hanson: What assistance he is providing to ensure access to education and health for women in Afghanistan.

Gemma Doyle: What guidance his Department is giving to heads of mission on the steps that should be taken to ensure continuing support for education and health care for women in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

John Robertson: What guidance his Department is giving to heads of mission on the steps that should be taken to ensure continuing support for education and health care for women in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Fiona O'Donnell: What guidance his Department is giving to heads of mission on the steps that should be taken to ensure continuing support for education and health care for women in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Karl Turner: What guidance is being given to heads of mission by his Department regarding the steps that should be taken to ensure continuing support for education and health care for women in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Chris Evans: What guidance is being given to heads of mission by his Department regarding the steps that should be taken to ensure continuing support for education and health care for women in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Alistair Burt: Supporting access to welfare, including education and health for women and girls in Pakistan, remains a key priority for the UK Government. Despite some fragility, we believe real progress has been made in these areas in these states over recent years. I expect to be able to give more details in answer to questions in the next few minutes.

David Hanson: I am grateful for the Minister’s response. Does he accept that one of the real benefits of intervention by international countries in Afghanistan has been the progress made for women? What steps will he take to ensure that, for neighbouring countries as well as areas in Afghanistan, such progress is not reversed?

Alistair Burt: The right hon. Gentleman is right to point to specific progress. In 2002, fewer than 9% of women in Afghanistan had access to any health care, whereas some 57% now have access to it within an hour, whether they walk or use other means of travel. It is important for that progress to continue. To that extent, the Tokyo mutual accountability framework agreed by a number of nations sets some indicators for Afghanistan in return for future financial support post-2015. Support for women, including measures such as the Act on the elimination of violence against women, is a key part of that and we would like to see it implemented as part of that agreement.

Gemma Doyle: Al-Jazeera has just reported a 22% increase in crimes of violence against women in Afghanistan. Despite the progress made, the truth is that many Afghan women cannot access education or health care for fears about their own safety. Will the Minister ensure that Afghan women are involved in
	planning for the 2014 London summit on Afghanistan’s future? Crucially, will he seek to guarantee women at least a 30% representation at that summit?

Alistair Burt: Yes, it has been vital that women have played an increasing part in political participation. Some 25% of members of Parliament in Afghanistan are women, and there are nine women members on the High Peace Council. Access to education remains key for the future. Some 2.3 million girls are now in education in Afghanistan compared with hardly any when the Taliban were in control. To ensure that that remains the case and in order to improve the chances of resisting violence against women—clearly, a serious issue in Afghanistan—it is crucial to keep that progress going.

John Robertson: As the Minister knows, security is fundamental to the delivery of education and health for women. What discussions has he had with the international security assistance force, his partners in Afghanistan, about the achievement of that security?

Alistair Burt: In many parts of Afghanistan, the security situation is very different from the situation that we sometimes see portrayed in areas such as Helmand and Kandahar. Bamyam province is governed by a woman, for example. Security issues are very different in different places. We have regular contact with ISAF and our own forces about the need to support the civil authorities that are promoting the rule of law in order to ensure that laws prohibiting violence against women are enforced, and our development work will, of course, continue after 2014.

Fiona O'Donnell: We all want to see improvements in access to health and education for women and girls in both Pakistan and Afghanistan. How is the Foreign Office working with the Department for International Development to achieve that?

Alistair Burt: Very closely. Progress in both countries is being handled almost on a mutual basis: many meetings take place at which FCO and DFID officials are present in post together. I have already provided some details relating to Afghanistan, but progress is being made in Pakistan as well. Because 50% of women in Pakistan currently give birth at home and some 12,000 die in childbirth or for related reasons, we have so far contributed to the support of some 17,000 community midwives there. Work of that kind can be done only with the support of the FCO, working with the Pakistan Government, and the good work of DFID and the non-governmental organisations that work with it to provide care on the ground.

Karl Turner: What is the Minister’s assessment of the contribution of women’s education to the long-term stability and development of Afghanistan?

Alistair Burt: It is utterly crucial. There is no recorded instance of a society in which women have been involved and engaged being in a worse position than before. That involvement and engagement is vital to progress.
	We are supporting projects including Afghan Women In Business and the promotion of entrepreneurship for women in Afghanistan. The number of women who are engaged in business remains incredibly small, and the
	female literacy rate is only about 12%. Our work must involve a combination of involving women in education, helping them to become involved in business, and, of course, continuing to support their political participation.

Chris Evans: As the Minister said earlier, more than 2 million Afghan girls have returned to school since the fall of the Taliban, but, according to press reports, hundreds of schools are closing all the time. As military operations are scaled down in Afghanistan, what action are the Government taking to ensure that the education of girls is maintained there?

Alistair Burt: When we talk of the scaling down of military activity, we should bear in mind that that refers to the withdrawal of international and United Kingdom forces from combat roles. In their place will be 330,000 Afghan security forces who know that part of their role will be providing domestic security to ensure that the progress that has been made—such as girls going to school—can continue, and that they will be protected in so doing. The example of Malala, the young woman in Pakistan who was threatened by people very similar to those who are threatening girls in Afghanistan, demonstrates the importance of that.

Margot James: If women are to gain access to health and education, they must enjoy the same freedoms in the public space as men. I congratulate the Foreign Secretary on his initiative to prevent sexual violence in conflict and post-conflict situations, and on putting that initiative on the G8 agenda. How will it be implemented in Afghanistan, where it is clearly much needed?

Alistair Burt: My hon. Friend is right to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend and his initiative to prevent sexual violence in conflict and post-conflict situations, which has been warmly welcomed by Members in all parts of the House and internationally. The G8 summit in April will consider the best way of implementing it, which will involve not just national Governments but non-governmental organisations and human rights monitors. They will be vital to ensuring that women are protected locally, and that those who perpetuate violence towards them are accountable for their actions.

Richard Ottaway: Does the Minister agree that one of the best ways of supporting education and health care for women in Afghanistan will be a successful transition in 2014? Will he update the House on how the talks in Doha are going? Is there any sign that the United States Administration are prepared to get involved in them?

Mr Speaker: Specifically and exclusively with reference to education and health for women in Afghanistan—nothing else. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knew that.

Alistair Burt: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that a successful transition is the most likely foundation for the continuation of the progress we have seen on women’s issues in recent years. Consultations are continuing with all parties, including in Doha, but perhaps the most successful line of conversation recently has been in the increased relationship between the Governments
	of Afghanistan and Pakistan. The United Kingdom has been closely involved in those arrangements to ensure that those Governments are working more closely together in isolating the extremists and finding the moderate politicians who will guarantee the future of Afghanistan.

Pauline Latham: The Minister mentioned brave Malala Yousafzai. Does he agree that when such girls have the courage to defy the Taliban in search of an education, the rest of the world has a responsibility to support them and to support education for women in the region?

Alistair Burt: My hon. Friend is absolutely right about that. The whole world was shocked by the attack on Malala, but what was remarkable was the response in Pakistan from women who felt horrified on her behalf. The fact that she has made such a stand is incredibly important. She is a source of joy to all of us with her recovery. She is a source of pride for us because she came to the United Kingdom to get the best health care in the world for her recovery. And she is a source of inspiration to everyone all over the world, youngsters and parents alike, because of her commitment to education.

Rehman Chishti: One of the major health care issues facing Pakistan is population growth and a lack of family planning. For example, 80% of maternal deaths there could be prevented. What assistance is being given to Pakistan to address those issues?

Alistair Burt: Again, my hon. Friend is absolutely to the point. We support programmes that will encourage women to take more control of situations in relation to pregnancy and child birth, and programmes are designed to assist that. The more control that women have over those situations in societies such as Pakistan, the better it will be for their general well-being and all-round health care issues.

Nicola Blackwood: Afghan and Pakistani women are not just victims; they are often the most effective and vocal in calling for their right to access services. However, like Malala, they face intimidation and abuse, and often grave sexual violence. What do the Government plan to do to support and protect these women and human rights defenders, especially in the context of the preventing sexual violence initiative?

Alistair Burt: My hon. Friend asks a highly pertinent question. These non-governmental organisations and human rights defenders, with their local knowledge, are often those closest to circumstances where people can be identified and protected. It is the intention of the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister to raise this issue at the G8 summit in April, where we hope the international community will also recognise their importance and ensure that the protocol provides protection for human rights defenders and others who will do so much to ensure the implementation of the Foreign Secretary’s initiative.

Occupied Palestinian Territories

Andrew Love: What recent reports he has received on the political situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

William Hague: We continue to monitor the protests in the west bank as well as reconciliation efforts between Fatah and Hamas. We are particularly concerned about the impact on the Palestinian Authority of Israel’s withholding of revenues. We call on Israel to release those revenues in accordance with its obligations under the Paris protocol.

Andrew Love: Last month, the Foreign Secretary told the House that he would discuss the diplomatic options with his European Union partners if recent settlement activity was not reversed. Given the likely outcome of the Israeli general election, that looks more distant now than ever. He recently said that he would discuss the
	“incentives and disincentives for both sides to return to negotiations.”—[Official Report, 4 December 2012; Vol. 554, c. 709.]
	What discussions has he had with his EU partners about those?

William Hague: We have many such discussions. As the hon. Gentleman will recall, I made my remarks in the context of the support we can give for what I hope will be a major effort by the United States on the middle east peace process—the greatest effort since the Oslo peace accords, as I have put it. Of course that awaits the outcome of the Israeli elections and the transition of personnel in the re-elected Obama Administration. I will be discussing this with the United States in Washington next week.

Robert Halfon: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a significant barrier to peace between Israel and the Palestinians is the continued supply of weapons and funding to Hamas in Gaza? What action are the Government taking to try to stop that funding and weapons supply?

William Hague: Yes, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. The behaviour of Hamas and the continued supply of weaponry to Hamas are a major problem in bringing about a two-state solution and peace in the middle east. We call on all states through which such weapons might pass to interdict such weapons and prevent their passage.

Anas Sarwar: If, as the Foreign Secretary has said, 2013 is to be the year of peace for Palestinians and Israelis, we urgently need both sides to begin meaningful peace talks. On his recent visit to the UK, did the secretary-general of the Arab League give any indication that its members would host urgent peace talks?

William Hague: I discussed that with Nabil al-Arabi, the secretary-general of the Arab League, when he was here two weeks ago. The Arab League, like us, looks to the United States to launch a major initiative and looks to be able to give its support to it in the same way that we in the European Union will be able to contribute, as I
	have said before, and as has been quoted, with “incentives and disincentives”. When the Israeli elections are completed and a new Israeli Government have taken office, it is important that that Israeli Government should be ready to enter such negotiations. It is also important that Palestinians should be ready to do so without preconditions and that the United States should be ready to launch a major new initiative.

Menzies Campbell: My right hon. Friend will recall that it has been the policy of successive British Governments for decades that there should be a two-state solution based on the 1967 borders. In the light of the political situation in Israel and the potential situation after the election, will he give the House his objective assessment of the possibility of ever achieving a solution based on two states and the 1967 boundaries?

William Hague: My right hon. and learned Friend accurately describes the position of successive Governments. I have said before in this House that changing facts on the ground, principally the construction of settlements on occupied land, mean that the two-state solution is slipping away. The chances of bringing it about are not yet at an end, but it is very urgent. I do not want to speculate, of course, about the outcome of the election taking place at the moment in Israel, but I hope that whatever Israeli Government emerge will recognise that we are approaching the last chance of bringing about such a solution.

Douglas Alexander: Let me pick up where the last question left off. In a speech to the House in November, the Foreign Secretary said:
	“If progress on negotiations is not made next year, the two-state solution could become impossible to achieve.”—[Official Report, 28 November 2012; Vol. 554, c. 227.]
	Today, he talked again of the greatest efforts since Oslo. In the light of today’s Israeli elections and yesterday’s US presidential inauguration, can he offer the House a little more detail on the substance of the major American initiative of which he has spoken? What other initiatives will be possible in the course of 2013 if we are not to see the end of the two-state solution, as he puts it?

William Hague: The short answer on the details of the initiative is no, because it requires the United States to take the lead. That is not because other countries like us are not willing to play our own active part, but because the United States is in a unique position in the world to help bring Israel into a two-state solution. I will be going to Washington next week and discussing the question with the United States. The Secretary of State has changed and there have been many other changes of personnel in the US Administration, and I have put it to them that this should be the single highest priority for new momentum in American foreign policy, even with all the other challenges we face in the world today.

Crispin Blunt: For five and a half years now, the Quartet has followed a largely economic policy in the west bank, personified by the work of Tony Blair, presumably to try to help lay better conditions for a political settlement. That strategy has comprehensively failed as the possibility of a political settlement is much
	further away now than it was then. Is it not now time for the Quartet to focus heavily on the politics rather than the economics?

William Hague: It is very important that the Quartet does everything that it can to recognise the urgency of what we are speaking about on both sides of the House. At the same time it is very important that we do everything we can to support a Palestinian economy that is in a serious condition. As my hon. Friend knows, we provide £30 million a year in budget support to the Palestinian Authority, and the Department for International Development has provided £349 million in support of Palestinian development in the current four-year spending programme. However, the conditions are difficult, and other nations need to do more. It is important that the Israelis release the revenues that are owed to the Palestinians.

Safety of Women (India)

Stella Creasy: What recent representations he has made to the Government of India on the safety of women and the rule of law.

Hugo Swire: We regularly discuss human rights issues with India, including the protection of women, both bilaterally and through the EU/India human rights dialogue. Women’s rights are on the agenda for the next instalment of the dialogue. I welcome the fact that the Indian Government continue to take steps to promote the rights of women and hope they will continue their efforts in this regard.

Stella Creasy: One in three women will be beaten or raped in her lifetime in this world. Whether the rape and murder of Jyoti Singh, the events in Steubenville in Ohio, what is happening in Congo, or even what is happening on our own streets and towns in Britain, the scale of violence against women and girls is overwhelming. The One Billion Rising campaign is leading campaigners in 188 countries to call for that issue to be a priority for all Governments to eliminate. Will the Foreign Secretary join us in supporting that campaign, and say so today, and will he do all that he can to encourage the Leader of the House to make sure that on 14 February we can debate these matters in a One Billion Rising debate?

Hugo Swire: This Government will stop at nothing in trying to stamp out violence of any sort against women, wherever it takes place. Unfortunately, there is too much violence against women even in our own country. The Under-Secretary of State for International Development, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone), is taking forward an international campaign to end violence against women, and will represent the UK at the UN Commission on the Status of Women, which will focus on the elimination and prevention of all forms of violence against women and girls. I would also say to the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) that we are using Britain’s presidency of the G8 to run a year-long campaign, led by the Foreign Secretary, on preventing sexual violence in armed conflicts.

Mr Speaker: The Minister of State has ably demonstrated that there is plenty of scope for a full day’s debate, and to that we look forward with eager anticipation.

Stephen Mosley: It is estimated that a rape takes place every 21 minutes in India. Does my right hon. Friend believe that the UK should offer specialist advice and training to the Indian police to help rape victims and to protect women from these horrific crimes?

Hugo Swire: I share my hon. Friend’s horror at the recent events, not least the rape of the 23-year-old medical student in Delhi. We welcome the steps that the Indian Government have taken to promote the rights of women, including laws on sex-selective abortions and action against human trafficking. We will work, if asked, with the Indian Government, but it is an internal Indian matter, which we shall certainly continue to raise with them.

Tessa Jowell: The brutal rape and murder of the young 23-year-old woman was perhaps the starkest example of the brutality faced by many young girls growing up in India. The risk is that all the good intentions sound like impotent hand-wringing. Will the Minister perhaps be more specific about the steps in bilateral discussion with the Indian authorities that he seeks to achieve?

Hugo Swire: The right hon. Lady needs to acknowledge that India has a liberal constitution and a strong political framework, and that women hold high-ranking positions in politics and civil society, so we are sure that the Indian Government can continue those efforts. More specifically, DFID is working with the Indian Government, for instance, in Bihar, to help 60,000 more girls to stay in secondary school and give 3 million more women access to wider choices in family planning, health, nutrition, micro-finance, and skills for jobs. It is about enabling women and raising their status in Indian society, and we continue to do that in conjunction with the Indian Government themselves.

Andrew Bridgen: Will my right hon. Friend update the House on the advice that is being given to British nationals planning to travel to India, as they will be concerned about their personal safety following these awful events?

Hugo Swire: I have reviewed the advice that we gave this morning to travellers going to India. We have not changed our advice. Clearly, we urge women, wherever they are travelling, to take care, particularly if travelling at night in unfamiliar places, and ideally to travel in conjunction with others. People should always look at the Foreign Office website before they travel anywhere in the world, because our advice is kept constantly under review.

Tensions in the East and South China Seas

Ian Lavery: What reports he has received on the effect of rising tension in the East and South China seas; and what discussions he has had with countries in that region.

David Wright: What reports he has received on the effect of rising tension in the East and South China seas; and what discussions he has had with countries in that region.

William Hague: I receive regular updates from our embassies on both these situations and the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr Swire) was in the region last week. We regard these maritime disputes as regional issues and are encouraging all parties involved to pursue a peaceful resolution in line with international law. On the South China sea we encourage progress on the Association of Southeast Asian Nations-China code of conduct.

Ian Lavery: Can the Foreign Secretary confirm that the dispute—the protests—in the East and South China seas have been raised with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, and does he believe that the tensions will be resolved both peacefully and swiftly?

William Hague: Yes, of course we have discussed this with ASEAN and bilaterally with many of the countries involved. We do not take a view on the strength of the various claims, but we encourage a peaceful resolution to these disputes in line with international law. ASEAN specifically has been working on a code of conduct, and we judge the code to be the best immediate prospect of managing the disputes, so we encourage all parties to work with that.

David Wright: I accept what the Foreign Secretary says about this being a regional conflict, but stability in that area of the world is incredibly important for UK trade. In Telford we have a large number of Japanese companies and companies from the region. What discussions has he had with the Japanese Government on stability in that area?

William Hague: I discussed this with the then Japanese Foreign Minister in October, Foreign Minister Genba, during our strategic dialogue. The hon. Gentleman is right—the UK has clear interests in the region, including preserving freedom of navigation and ensuring the safety of UK oil and gas companies operating in the region, but I am sure it is very much the right approach to encourage all parties to pursue a peaceful resolution, rather than for the United Kingdom to take a position on the strength of the various claims.

Peter Tapsell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the dispute about the Senkaku islands cannot be regarded as just a regional issue, because of the United States’ commitment to defend both Japan and Taiwan, although the legal position of the islands is not so clear? As it is reported that the Chinese are massing missiles on the coast of the East China sea capable of hitting Japan, we could be facing a very dangerous international situation. As we are friends of all the disputants and their allies on this issue, this is an opportunity for the Foreign Secretary to show his statesmanship.

William Hague: When I say that it is a regional issue, I do not mean that the rest of the world is not concerned about it. It is a matter to be resolved by the countries in
	the region. That is the important point. Of course we have been talking to the parties involved and have urged them to seek peaceful and co-operative solutions in accordance with international law, including in accordance with the United Nations convention on the law of the sea, so we will continue to take that role.

John Spellar: The rising economic importance of Asia is widely acknowledged, as well as the importance of those sea lanes, not only to the Asian economy but to the European and the wider world economy. I concur with the right hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Sir Peter Tapsell)—this cannot be just a matter of regional importance, especially with the increasing level of defence equipment expenditure taking place in that region. Can we therefore look at ensuring that the disputes are resolved through international law and not through military action?

William Hague: The latter point is very important and absolutely right, but the best role that the United Kingdom can play in order to contribute to that is to do the sorts of things that I described. I do not think that the United Kingdom taking a position on the strength of various claims would serve very well our objective of trying to bring about a peaceful resolution, but the right hon. Gentleman is right to stress the importance of that.

Settlement Building (West Bank)

Gregg McClymont: What recent representations his Department has made to persuade the Israeli Government to cease settlement expansion in the west bank.

William Hague: I condemn recent Israeli decisions to expand settlements. I speak regularly to Israeli leaders, stressing our profound concern that Israel’s settlement policy is losing it the support of the international community and will make a two-state solution impossible. We will continue to press the next Israeli Government to cease settlement building.

Gregg McClymont: The Secretary of State will be aware that the political process is critical if the peace process is to begin again. I know that the UK Government decided to abstain from the vote on whether to grant Palestine non-member observer status at the UN, but does he believe that the success of the vote was a positive or negative step on the road to a peaceful solution to the conflict?

William Hague: Following that vote, there have of course been additional complications, including Israeli announcements on unfreezing settlement applications in the E1 area and the withholding of revenues for the Palestinian Authority, to which I referred a few minutes ago. That has meant Israel taking a step back, and that was one of the things we feared about going to the United Nations General Assembly in November. Nevertheless, it has happened. It is important for both sides to make progress. That will be our message to the next Israeli Government, and it continues to be our message to the Palestinians; both sides should be prepared to enter into negotiations without preconditions.

Bob Blackman: Clearly the election taking place today will have a significant effect on what happens to the next Israeli Government. What will my right hon. Friend do about the settlement activity to ensure that there is a just and peaceful solution to this long-standing problem?

William Hague: This raises our whole approach to the middle east peace process. As other right hon. and hon. Members have quoted in the past half hour, I attach enormous importance to this in the year 2013, particularly as there will be a new or re-elected Israeli Government, and with the US Administration beginning its second term. If we do not make progress in the coming year, people will increasingly conclude that a two-state solution has become impossible.

Gerald Kaufman: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that last week Israeli soldiers murdered four innocent Palestinians on the west bank, including a 17-year-old boy? Taking that into account, along with the fact that Netanyahu said this week that, if re-elected, he will not negotiate on the 1967 borders, what specific action will the Government take to get the Israelis to see that their future survival depends on a two-state solution?

William Hague: We will of course continue to put that case very strongly. It is very much in the long-term strategic interests of Israel and peace in the whole region to embrace a two-state solution, because all the alternatives will be more problematic, particularly for the Israelis. I think that many people in Israel strongly hold that view—clearly, views in Israel are divided—and it is certainly our view and that of almost all other nations of the world. The role of the United States will be crucial, which is why that will be top of my agenda when I visit Washington next week.

Duncan Hames: I draw attention to my entry in the register. Last month I and hon. Members from both sides of the House saw for ourselves measures to segregate Israeli settlements around east Jerusalem and the E1 area, which is bigger still, from the rest of the west bank. What does the Foreign Secretary think would be the consequences for the prospects for peace talks were the Israeli Government to proceed with extending the security barrier around the E1 area?

William Hague: Such extensions, and any prospect of building in the E1 area, would of course be extremely damaging to the prospect for a successful peace process. That is why it is so urgent. Now that the planning process for the E1 area has been unfrozen, a clock is ticking, with potentially disastrous consequences for the peace process.

Ian Lucas: The Israeli Government’s response to Britain’s abstention at the UN was, in the words of the Foreign Secretary, “taking a step back”. Therefore, will he please discuss urgently with our European partners the co-ordinated response to the present situation on the ground and use the wish for Israeli to develop stronger trading relations with the European Union as a means of achieving progress in the middle east?

William Hague: To be clear, the Israeli response is to the passing of the Palestinian resolution, not to the UK abstention; the hon. Gentleman may have misunderstood the motivation behind Israel’s policy, which clearly relates to the passing of the resolution.
	As to the implications for future relations with the EU, provided that there is a major initiative on the peace process, in particular from Washington, we will all have to work out the incentives and disincentives that we can create to support that. But of course that is work to be done over the coming weeks and months.

Jaffna University Students

Mark Durkan: What assessment he has made of reported clashes between Sri Lankan security forces and Jaffna university students and the situation of those who have been arrested and detained.

Alistair Burt: We are concerned about the attacks on students at Jaffna university in November last year. Our high commissioner has expressed those concerns to the authorities in Sri Lanka, and we continue to monitor the detention of those students. We take every opportunity to raise human rights concerns with the Government of Sri Lanka, and I will raise those concerns, including this case, when I visit Sri Lanka fairly shortly.

Mark Durkan: I thank the Minister for his answer and his personal engagement. The attacks and arrests took place on the day after Tamil remembrance day. The region is highly militarised and even this week the Sri Lankan Parliament is looking at legislation to extend detention without warrant. When the Minister visits Sri Lanka next week, will he tell the regime there that he will not be persuaded by the language of reconciliation that it offers the diplomatic community, given that it offers only an arsenal of repression to the Tamil community?

Alistair Burt: The hon. Gentleman puts his case well. I expect to have straightforward private conversations with the Sri Lankan authorities. I will make the point that if reconciliation is to mean anything, a straightforward gesture such as converting the current triumphal expressions following the end of the war into a day of national reconciliation, as recommended by the lessons learned and reconciliation committee, would be a good step forward and perhaps start to defuse the tension, an increase of which would be very unwelcome.

Martin Horwood: Commonwealth Heads of Government are due to meet in Sri Lanka this November, with Australia in the chair. Have concerns about human rights been raised in the Minister’s preparatory conversations with the secretary-general and the Australian and Sri Lankan Governments?

Alistair Burt: Yes, concerns about human rights in Sri Lanka are raised among those who have the interests of all Sri Lankans at heart. The United Kingdom has made no decision yet as to the level of its attendance at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting.

Latin America

Nicholas Dakin: What recent assessment he has made of the UK’s relations with countries in Latin America.

William Hague: We are striving to broaden and deepen our relations in Latin America—after years of neglect, I have to say. There were 23 ministerial visits to the region in 2012. We have opened new posts in El Salvador and Recife, Brazil, and will do so in Paraguay this year. We will host the first UK-Brazil strategic dialogue in London on 4 February.

Nicholas Dakin: Now that the Falkland Islands Government have announced a date and wording for the referendum, what discussion have the Government had with Argentina and its South American neighbours about respecting the Falkland Islanders’ right of self-determination and the outcome of that referendum?

William Hague: Of course, we regularly discuss with countries all around Latin America the importance of self-determination for the Falkland Islanders and our absolute commitment to that. I believe that one of the most effective impacts on public opinion and Governments in Latin America in recent months has been the fact that Falkland Islanders themselves have been going to many countries and explaining the history of their islands and their attachment to self-determination.

Neil Carmichael: I note the excellent work of our ambassador and embassy in Chile. Does the Secretary of State agree that our relationship with Chile is particularly important, particularly when it comes to our situation with the Falklands and also Antarctica?

William Hague: Yes, it is a very good and important relationship and we have built it up further. For instance, the UK is now the top destination for Chilean students receiving Government grants. The links between our countries are growing, and the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr Swire), is heading to Chile tomorrow.

Mr Speaker: We now come to topical questions. Demand always exceeds supply, so I remind colleagues that questions and answers should be very brief.

Topical Questions

Louise Ellman: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

William Hague: We remain focused on the terrible events and tragic loss of life in Algeria and are now working to ensure that the identification and repatriation of the deceased takes place as quickly as possible. Our work on countering terrorism with Algeria and other countries in the region has been increased in recent times, and that work will be further intensified in the weeks ahead.

Louise Ellman: The Bulgarian authorities have confirmed that Hezbollah was responsible for the terrorist attack on tourists in Burgas airport last July. Will the Foreign Secretary renew his efforts to persuade Europe to proscribe Hezbollah?

William Hague: Yes. This is of course an important development. I have discussed the aftermath of that terrible bombing several times with the Bulgarian Foreign Minister. It is certainly our view that we need to act against the military wing of Hezbollah, and we will be pursuing that over the coming days.

Laura Sandys: While progress is slow in Somalia but things are improving considerably, what does the Foreign Secretary feel about the impact of the London conference almost a year ago?

Mark Simmonds: My hon. Friend is right to raise the progress that has been made in Somalia. She will be aware, I hope, that we are planning a second conference in May this year that will be hosted jointly by the UK Government and the Somalian Government. It will prioritise the security sector, the justice sector, and building governance in the Somali Government so that they can provide services for their people.

Douglas Alexander: I am sure that the Foreign Secretary will remember that in October 2011 he and I stood shoulder to shoulder in the same Lobby opposing a motion for an in/out referendum on Europe. He said at the time:
	“It would create additional economic uncertainty in this country at a difficult economic time.”
	I have not changed my mind—why has he?

William Hague: Of course, the right hon. Gentleman will have to await the Prime Minister’s speech about this. Talking of changing minds, I understand now from the position taken by the Leader of the Opposition that he is not ruling out having such a referendum in future in any case. Talking of changing minds, the right hon. Gentleman and Labour Members did not support our referendum lock legislation, and I understand now that they have no wish to repeal it, which we welcome. Talking of changing minds, I believe that the Leader of the Opposition said that if he were Prime Minister for long enough he might take Britain into the euro, while now he says that he would not but will still not rule out backing euro membership for the future. No minds change more often on this subject than those of Opposition Front Benchers.

Douglas Alexander: Many words, Mr Speaker, but not quite as many answers. Perhaps I can try the Foreign Secretary on this one: if he believes that an immediate in/out referendum will cause uncertainty, why would an in/out referendum many years from now not cause uncertainty?

William Hague: As I say, I do not want to anticipate the Prime Minister’s speech. However, I think it is clear from my analysis of the policy of the Opposition that nothing could create more uncertainty than the adoption of their positions, and constant changing of their positions, either in this Parliament or the next.

Philip Hollobone: In a recently discovered TV interview from 2010, Mohamed Morsi, who is now the President of Egypt, is seen referring to Zionists as “bloodsuckers” and “descendants of apes and pigs”. What is Her Majesty’s Government’s assessment of those remarks and of the potential role that Mohamed Morsi might play in helping to arrive at a middle east peace settlement?

William Hague: Of course, we absolutely do not agree with any such remarks. My hon. Friend is quite right to give the date, because those remarks were made well before the President of Egypt took office as President. We welcome, since he took office, his maintenance of the peace treaty with Israel and the work that Egypt has done, including engaging with Israel, to try to succeed in bringing about a ceasefire in the Gaza conflict that we saw a few weeks ago. We will continue to judge the President by his actions in office.

Barry Gardiner: At the global conference that the Foreign Secretary was good enough to host last week in the Locarno rooms, Christiana Figueres, the executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, made it clear that a settlement in 2015 would as much reflect national legislation as define it. What steps is his Department taking in bilateral arrangements with other countries to promote that national legislation?

William Hague: We do a great deal of that in our bilateral relations. This work was started under the previous Government—I pay tribute to that—and it continues in the current Government. I think we are foremost among Foreign Ministries in promoting the recognition of climate change and the need to act on it within other countries around the world. We have done a lot of that in China and do a lot of it in Brazil and many other emerging economies, so that work has the continued energy that we have all put into it over the past few years.

Simon Hughes: As a warm Commonwealth friend and ally to Pakistan, what is the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s assessment of the present political difficulties in that very important country in the region?

William Hague: Pakistan has many political controversies and difficulties, even by our own standards, but it is approaching an election with the prospect of this being the first democratically elected Parliament and Government in the history of Pakistan that can be succeeded by another democratically elected Parliament and Government. That will be an important milestone in the history of Pakistan, so although many controversies swirl around, we must maintain our robust support for the institutions of a democratic Pakistan. We always make that very clear.

Kelvin Hopkins: Colombia’s FARC has just ended its two-month unilateral ceasefire while peace talks took place in Cuba. The Colombian Government refused to agree to a bilateral ceasefire and have now returned to a state of war, but FARC is willing to offer another ceasefire if the Government enter a bilateral truce. Will the UK Government use their influence with the Colombian Government to press for such a bilateral truce as a basis for further peace talks and an end to the war?

Hugo Swire: Yes, indeed we will. The hon. Gentleman will know that the official peace negotiations with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia started in October in Norway. They announced a universal ceasefire for two months, and the Colombian Government and FARC jointly announced a mechanism for civil society participation in the peace negotiations, and those negotiations continue. The British Government stand by—many hon. Members have written to me about this—ready to work with the authorities in Colombia to ensure long-lasting peace in the country.

John Baron: Given the likely change in the political make-up of the Israeli Government following today’s elections, may I urge the Government to redouble their efforts to dissuade the Israelis from a pre-emptive strike against Iran, an act that would be illegal, that would reinforce the position of hardliners in Iran and that could lead to regional war?

William Hague: We have made our position on that clear to Israel and we will continue to do so. We believe in a twin-track process, endorsed in this House, of negotiations and sanctions, so we are not in favour, in those circumstances, of a military strike. However, as my hon. Friend knows—he does not agree with this, but it is our policy—we have taken no option off the table for the future. We are now exploring the possibility of returning to negotiations with Iran on its nuclear programme, but that will require a readiness by Iran to enter into realistic negotiations.

Catherine McKinnell: Given recent reports from eastern Congo and news of non-governmental organisations not being able to reach communities, particularly children, with food and medical treatment, what discussions have the UK had with the United Nations about plans and, crucially, a time scale for the comprehensive political framework for the eastern Democratic Republic of Congo?

Mark Simmonds: The hon. Lady is absolutely right to raise this important issue. I will travel tomorrow to the African Union summit in Addis Ababa, where one of my main priorities will be to encourage regional countries to sign the memorandum of understanding, which will go into some of the detail that she has mentioned. There are two elements: one is to resolve short-term issues that involve the M23—talks are taking place in Kampala—and the other is to put in place longer-term strategies that will enable the aid and assistance to get in for long-term sustainable solutions in that troubled area.

Dominic Raab: Last March this House unanimously voted for a UK-equivalent to the US Sergei Magnitsky law. Ministers undertook to take that up if the US Bill became law. It now has, so when will the Government produce legislative proposals of their own so that we can ban those with blood on their hands from waltzing into Britain?

David Lidington: In this country we operate on the basis of making a judgment, not on speculation about applications, but on actual
	applications for visas. We have a presumption that someone against whom there is evidence of human rights abuses will not be admitted to the United Kingdom, and that is the policy that we intend to continue.

Keith Vaz: Relations between Britain and Yemen are very good, so when can we restore direct flights between Sana’a and London, and allow Yemenis to apply in Sana’a for a visa to come to Britain, rather than have to go to Abu Dhabi or Cairo?

Alistair Burt: The right hon. Gentleman is correct that relations between Yemen and ourselves are extremely good, and we continue to be in contact about its national dialogue and progress towards further elections in a couple of years. The security situation remains the most important condition on whether direct flights are reintroduced. The scanners are now in place, but a decision on direct flights depends on training and the overall security situation.

Martin Horwood: My former constituent Lindsay Sandiford was sentenced to death in Indonesia this morning for drug trafficking. Whatever our abhorrence of that evil trade, does the Foreign Secretary agree that this is out of keeping with Indonesia’s historic progress towards democracy and human rights? Will he ensure that Mrs Sandiford, who has struggled with legal representation, receives the best possible consular support?

Hugo Swire: We are aware that Lindsay Sandiford is facing the death penalty in Indonesia. We strongly object to the death penalty and continue to provide consular assistance to Lindsay and her family during this difficult time. We have made repeated representations to the Indonesian authorities, and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary raised Lindsay Sandiford’s case with Dr Marty Natalegawa, the Indonesian Foreign Minister, during the November state visit of the Indonesian President. We understand that under Indonesian law, Lindsay has at least two further avenues of appeal through the courts, as well as an opportunity to apply for presidential clemency should they be unsuccessful.

Tristram Hunt: The Europe chief executive of Ford cars has said that to
	“discuss leaving a trading partner where 50% of your exports go…would be devastating for the UK economy.”
	Ian Robertson of BMW has said:
	“To think about the UK being outside of Europe doesn’t make sense.”
	When will the Conservative party start putting the UK national interest above another bout of ideological self-indulgence?

David Lidington: It is precisely because the Government see the advantages to our national interest of active involvement in changing the European Union in the right way that we have succeeded in winning free trade agreements at European level with Singapore and Korea and are successfully pushing for the further deepening of the single market.

James Duddridge: What assessment has the Secretary of State made of the recent elections in Ghana?

Mark Simmonds: I was fortunate enough to attend the inauguration of President Mahama in Accra about two weeks ago, and I can say to my hon. Friend that the elections were free, fair and credible. The election observers uniformly came up with that view. The Ghanaian people and body politic need significant credit for five or six free and fair elections that have enabled the free transfer of powers to take place.

Graeme Morrice: What discussions has the Secretary of State had with the devolved Administration in Scotland on the implications and additional costs of a separate Scottish state establishing new foreign embassies and consulates in the event of a yes vote in the pending independence referendum?

William Hague: I am not aware of the Scottish Government asking for the costings on establishing a diplomatic network around the world, but clearly the costs would be very substantial. Scots benefit, as all of us in the UK do, from having one of the largest diplomatic networks in the world and a Foreign Office that is one of the most capable in the world at providing consular support to its citizens. It would, of course, be very expensive to replicate that.

James Morris: With E3 plus 3 negotiations on the Iranian nuclear programme effectively stalled as a result of Iranian prevarication, will the Foreign Secretary reassure the House that the British Government are still absolutely committed to sustaining and deepening sanctions against Iran?

William Hague: Yes, we are very much committed to that. Indeed, the sanctions that were decided on in the European Union in October are coming into effect in stages now and over the coming weeks. We continue to encourage other countries to adopt similar sanctions, and I warmly welcomed Australia’s adoption last week of sanctions that closely match those of the United States and the EU. Unless Iran takes a more constructive approach to negotiations, sanctions will only intensify.

Gisela Stuart: Will the Minister update the House on the progress made in negotiating the multiannual financial framework?

David Lidington: We continue to work closely with other EU member states to try to achieve a settlement, which would be agreed on the basis of a significant further cut from the figures that the Commission currently proposes, and to maintain and protect the United Kingdom’s rebate and so deliver a better deal than our predecessors achieved last time the negotiations took place.

David Mowat: Rising global food prices are a major cause of instability in developing countries, including those in north Africa. The UN has recently described the practice of converting agricultural land to biogas as a crime against humanity. What more can the Government do to persuade the EU and the US to stop subsidising that practice?

Mark Simmonds: The Government are significantly engaged in multilateral discussions aimed at precisely that point and to address high and volatile global food prices, notably at the UN Food and Agricultural Organisation and the G20’s Agricultural Market Information System.

Jeremy Corbyn: What contact are the Government having with the Government of Iran, and what are they doing to ensure that the aspiration of a middle east nuclear weapon free zone conference takes place, given that the one due in Helsinki was postponed?

Alistair Burt: As co-sponsor of the conference, we are determined to see it progress. It was not possible to hold it by the end of last year, but I remain in contact with Minister Laavaja, the facilitator, to see whether it can make progress. It is the United Kingdom’s intention to continue to press for this.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. To meet demand for Foreign Office questions would probably require a repeat performance on a daily basis, for which diaries sadly do not allow. I hope colleagues will understand that I could not accommodate any more. We must now move on.

Armed Forces Redundancies

Jim Murphy: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence to make an urgent statement on today’s news on Army redundancies.

Mark Francois: As the House will be aware, the Government announced the process and outline timetable for the armed forces redundancy programme on 1 March 2011—the need for the programme being born out of the strategic defence and security review and subsequent activity to balance the books in the Ministry of Defence. Although in an ideal world we would not need to run a redundancy programme, the Ministry of Defence—like all areas of Government—must live within its means.
	Today’s announcement represents the start of the third tranche of that programme and affects only Army personnel. Announcements about who has been selected will be made on 18 June 2013. Applicants will be given six months’ notice, and non-applicants 12 months’ notice, before they leave the service. Although we need to make up to 5,300 Army personnel redundant, the programme will not adversely affect operations in Afghanistan. As with previous tranches there are a number of important exclusions from the programme. Critically, those preparing for, deployed on or recovering from operations on 18 June will be exempt from this tranche. Similarly, personnel who are below the necessary medical standard for continued service will be ineligible for redundancy and will be handled, if necessary, through the standard medical process already in place.
	The House will wish to note that because of the draw-down in Afghanistan already announced, a final decision on those who will deploy there in autumn this year will not be made until April 2013. As a result, the final decision on personnel who are excluded as a result of the “preparing for operations” category will not be made until then. We expect at that stage that there will be a further tranche of redundancies in 2014. That is likely to affect Army personnel and a small number of medical and dental officers from the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force.
	Throughout the process, the Army will seek to maximise the number of applicants for redundancy. At the same time, we have cut back on recruiting as far as is safe to do so, but as the House will recognise, the services recruit from the bottom up, and therefore a steady inflow of Army recruits will continue to be required.
	It is worth highlighting that the majority of those leaving the services as a result of tranches 1 and 2 have already enjoyed success in moving to civilian jobs. All those being made redundant, whether applicants or non-applicants, will enjoy the benefits of the career transition programme. The CTP includes career transition workshops, up to 35 days of paid resettlement, and training and financial support for education and training for up to 10 years after leaving. The programme has historically proved successful in assisting service leavers to find work outside the armed forces, and 93% of those who look for work via the CTP are in full-time employment within six months of leaving the services, rising to 97% after 12 months. To that end, 91% of tranche 1 applicants—more
	than 1,500 in total—have already found employment. That is testament to, and a reflection of, the training and quality that we, as a nation, continue to find in our service personnel.

Jim Murphy: I thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting the urgent question, and the Minister for his reply in the absence of the Secretary of State from the Chamber. It is important to say at the beginning that, on issues of national security and respect for our forces, there should always be bipartisanship.
	On the human impact of today’s announcement, will any of those who apply for redundancy as a consequence be refused it? Will any of those who have no intention of leaving be forced to leave? What is the total number of people in the pool who are liable for redundancy? It seems that, as a consequence of what the Minister has said today, those currently serving in Afghanistan will not be exempt from the next round of Army redundancies.
	All of that has created enormous uncertainty for those who are forced to look for other work or who face mortgage problems. In opposition, Labour has convinced many large private sector employers to guarantee job interviews to unemployed veterans. Will the Ministry of Defence now finally agree to try to do the same with public sector employers? Will the Minister work with mortgage providers to support those who are losing their jobs?
	The gaps in the regular Army capability are to be filled by a doubling of the reserves, yet progress is concerning. A recent survey by the Federation of Small Businesses worryingly showed that one in three employers said that nothing would encourage them to employ a reservist, while nine out of 10 said that they had never heard of the MOD’s employer awareness events. Will the Minister therefore confirm how the Territorial Army has performed against its 2012 recruitment target, and, in light of the enormous increase in demands on the hoped-for thousands of new reservists, will he agree to consider legislation to protect reservists’ employment rights so that they do not face discrimination in the workplace?
	The Government’s defence review committed the UK to an Army of 95,000, but it did not mention Mali, Algeria, Tunisia, Nigeria or even Libya. The threats have increased, and yet the Army is being cut to just 82,000, which is well below the previous promise. Will the Minister therefore finally agree to reopen the defence review, which once again has had its flaws exposed by world events?
	The Prime Minister rightly spoke yesterday of the urgency concerning the Islamist terror threat to the UK from north Africa, but in a “carry on regardless” strategy, the very next day the MOD has announced 5,000 Army redundancies. Unless Ministers have answers, there will be a growing sense in the country that they are unprepared for the emerging threats in north Africa and beyond.

Mark Francois: The shadow Secretary of State asks a number of questions. I will do my best to take them in turn—I might not stick to the precise order, but I will try to get to them.
	First, the right hon. Gentleman says that this should not be a subject for partisan argument—the whole House realises that this is an important matter. I will try
	to respect that spirit, but I cannot escape from pointing out that, although I hear what he says, the reason we are having to conduct a redundancy programme is, ultimately, the size of the defence deficit that this Government inherited. The scale of downsizing required in the Army is a consequence of that. Nothing he can say today can hide that.
	That said, let me see whether I can take the right hon. Gentleman’s questions in turn—he asked quite a lot. He asked me to define the size of the pool in tranche 3. The pool is up to 5,300 personnel; it will be limited in tranche 3 to personnel drawn from the Army. It might not reach 5,300. That, in a sense, is the upper number.
	The right hon. Gentleman asks whether we would make redundant people who did not want to be made redundant. We will do everything we can to maximise the number of applicants for redundancy. From memory, in tranche 1—when, effectively, exactly the same process and rules were applied—just over 60% of those made redundant were applicants for redundancy. Again from memory, in tranche 2, just over 70% were applicants for redundancy. We will do everything we practically can to maximise the number of applicants in tranche 3. I cannot, in all honesty, give him a guarantee at the Dispatch Box today that we will achieve 100%, but I hope he will understand that, in spirit, we will try to make that number as high as we can.
	On exclusions, I set out my reply a few minutes ago. They are effectively the same as for tranches 1 and 2, and details are provided in the written ministerial statement. I have said that there will be a further tranche, tranche 4, at some point later next year. The exclusions that would apply on that date in 2014 should, in principle, be exactly the same exclusions that apply at the moment for this tranche.
	On reserves, the right hon. Gentleman expressed scepticism on whether we would be able to meet the target. I believe that on the radio this morning he said:
	“I think over time, reducing the size of the armed forces, as long as you put something in its place with a professional reservist force, then there’s a logic to it.”
	I agree with him. The question is: can we get to that number? I hope I am in a position to give a reasonably authoritative comment on this, as I served in the reserve forces as an infantry officer in the 1980s. In those days, the Territorial Army, which, as he knows, may be renamed the Army Reserve, had a trained strength of 75,000 men. [Interruption.] He asked me a question; he must let me answer it. We are now aiming to get to 30,000 by 2018. I have to believe that if we got to 75,000 at that time, we can get to 30,000 now.
	Our consultation on this matter closed last week. We have had more than 2,500 responses, many from reservists themselves, which is very encouraging. We will publish a White Paper announcing the way forward in spring. As I said in Defence questions last week, we will publish the White Paper, which in military terminology is our plan of attack. We will then cross the start line and get on with it. We are going to succeed.

Bob Stewart: I, sadly, had to make four officers on operations redundant. Two of them were volunteers, and two were not. It is very sad that we are now having to force people to take redundancy who might otherwise not be made redundant, because
	other people on operations cannot be made redundant. Will people who volunteer for redundancy, despite being on operations, be allowed to take it?

Mark Francois: In answering my hon. Friend’s question, I pay tribute to his considerable experience in these matters, as the whole House knows. The exclusions apply to people if they do not wish to apply for redundancy and would not be made redundant. If they wish to apply for redundancy voluntarily from within those fields, they are allowed to do so. In essence, they are excluded if they do not want to apply, but allowed to apply voluntarily should they wish to do so. I hope that answers his question.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: As Members can see for themselves, a large number of right hon. and hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye and I am keen to accommodate the level of interest. If I am to have any chance of doing so, however, my ritual exhortation to brevity takes on a particular importance.

Derek Twigg: I think we will come to regret the cuts to our capability. My question relates specifically to medical staff. Can the Minister say exactly how many medics will be made redundant as a result of the plans he has announced today? What impact will they have on medics cross-service, particularly on operations and in places such as the Queen Elizabeth hospital in Birmingham, and on the expertise and experience in the medical division of our armed forces?

Mark Francois: Mr Speaker, I know you have asked for brevity, but as the hon. Gentleman has mentioned the military-managed ward at the Queen Elizabeth hospital it would be remiss of me not to pay tribute to the wonderful people who work there and the marvellous service they provide to our wounded and injured personnel. Bless you, Mr Speaker.
	There may be some small reductions to the number of Army medics in this tranche, and some small reductions in naval and RAF medics and dentists in tranche 4. The details are still being worked through, but the hon. Gentleman, who has done this job, will understand that if we are downsizing the regular forces, it makes sense to downsize concomitantly the size of the medical division—but no more than that.

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the Minister for his blessing, which is considerably more than either of us offered the other when first we met in September 1983.

Menzies Campbell: Can we have an assurance that those selected for redundancy will not include any of those who have specialist skills, such as intelligence gathering, that would assist in the achievement of the ambitious agenda announced by the Prime Minister yesterday?

Mark Francois: I would say to my right hon. and learned Friend that in rebalancing the regular Army for its new, smaller size, we need to ensure that we have the correct balance of skills in our armed forces, and we will attempt to do that, including for intelligence personnel.

Angus Robertson: Service personnel numbers in Scotland are at a record low of 11,000. Will the Minister confirm whether that will go down yet further? Only last year the Ministry of Defence said that between 6,500 and 7,000 troops would return from Germany, that a new barracks would be built at Kirknewton and that there would be new training areas in the borders. Will the Minister confirm that the Government are going back on all those commitments?

Mark Francois: For the purposes of this process, Scottish personnel will be treated in much the same way as personnel throughout the rest of the United Kingdom. I believe the House thinks that is right; so do I.

John Baron: Some of us who have served question the wisdom of cutting regular battalions before knowing for sure that the reservists can fill the large gap that will be left behind. We live in an uncertain world. What objective measures exist for Parliament to gauge progress on this issue?

Mark Francois: As my hon. Friend may recall, he raised this matter with me at Defence questions last week. At the risk of being repetitious, I pointed out to him that we are delighted that recent tri-service and Army recruiting campaigns have already produced a 25% increase in TA inquiries, while regular Army engagements are up 3% against a three-year rolling average. I have taken a close personal interest in the plan to increase the size of the reserves. I understand what lies behind his question, but I genuinely believe that we can do it.

Dan Jarvis: Further to the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr Murphy), may I ask the Minister whether he will be accepting voluntary applications for redundancy from pinch-point trades? If so, what assessment has been made of the cost of replacing that essential operational capability?

Mark Francois: I understand the question and I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman’s service in the regular armed forces. We have to wait and see exactly who does and does not apply. We will not know until March who exactly is in the pool of applicants, so it is difficult for me to answer his question now. However, we need to achieve a fully balanced Army at the end of this process, and that will clearly be an important factor in our thinking when looking at individuals.

Jack Lopresti: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that we are actively seeking to take the people who are accepting redundancy —or being forced to take it—into the reserve forces? Obviously we need to maintain expertise and experience wherever possible, so if we are doing that, will he also ensure that the transitional period is as efficient and speedy as possible, which, as he and I know, has not always been the case?

Mark Francois: The in-principle answer to my hon. Friend’s question is yes, of course we are trying to encourage members leaving the regular forces to join the reserves. He is right that there have been some blockages in the recruiting pipeline in the reserves. I have paid close attention to that. I believe that we have cleared those
	blockages—I know exactly what he is talking about—and, because of that, that we can make the system of joining the reserves much more smooth and effective in future.

Andrew Miller: What advice did the Minister take on the impact of his statement on morale and, therefore, the effectiveness of the Army?

Mark Francois: As I have already said, I do not believe that this will affect current operations in Afghanistan. We have of course consulted with the service chiefs and—particularly on this tranche—members from the Army personnel branch. I am very conscious that behind every person who may be affected there is not just a service number, but a serviceman or woman and potentially a family. We realise that, which is why we are trying to do this as fairly and practically as possible, given that we understand that it is a difficult process.

Nick Harvey: Will the Minister confirm that the painful decisions taken in and since the strategic defence and security review aim to balance savings across manpower, equipment and support? Is it not incumbent on anyone opposing this round of redundancies to say where else they would make the savings in defence or come up with an additional defence budget?

Mark Francois: Yes and yes.

Jim Cunningham: I remind the Minister that he is responsible for the double-dip recession—he should not blame the previous Government. More importantly, how many civilian jobs will go as a result of today’s decision?

Mark Francois: I should say that this process not only affects our regular armed forces. Civilians in the Ministry of Defence are affected by a parallel programme—I think that by 2015 we will have reduced our number of civilians by approximately 33%. It would be unfair to say that our regular forces are bearing the brunt of the process while our civil service work force are not, because they are being affected in parallel.

Crispin Blunt: In conducting this wretchedly painful exercise—for reasons that we all understand—which is often heartbreaking at unit level, will the Minister confirm that his duty is to the future shape of the armed forces, that they have the best possible collection of experience and ability to shape manpower and that this will mean making people redundant who do not apply for it? That is a necessary difficultly that, if he is to exercise his duty, we have to face up to.

Mark Francois: I thank my hon. Friend for the spirit of his question. In the Ministry of Defence we are ultimately responsible for the defence of the realm, but as I hope he and the House will accept, I fully appreciate as someone who has served in uniform the difficult side of what we are having to do today. We completely understand that. We are therefore doing our best to proceed as sympathetically and fairly as possible; but we must configure our armed forces for the defence of our country and achieve the target set out in Future Force 2020.

Jenny Chapman: Darlington has a long and proud history of service in the armed forces, particularly the TA. I commend the Minister for his prior service, but as he will have picked up, there is a lot of concern in the House about levels of recruitment to the TA. Can he help us by identifying exactly what level of recruitment to the TA is required and how far we are from achieving it?

Mark Francois: The target is for the Territorial Army—probably to be renamed the Army Reserve—to have 30,000 trained reservists by 2018. By the way, we also want to increase the maritime reserve and the Royal Auxiliary Air Force, but they are already nearer their targets. We have looked carefully at the recruiting process. The White Paper, which we will publish in the spring, will lay out our plan of action. We will then move forward rapidly to execute that plan of action. I assure the hon. Lady and the House that I am keeping a laser-like focus on this, because I served in the reserves and I want to see them do well.

Richard Drax: Does the Minister agree that the defence of our country is a Government’s top priority? If he does agree, how are we to meet all our commitments, with threats growing almost daily, if we continue to cut our armed services?

Mark Francois: I should also acknowledge my hon. Friend’s service in the Household Division. The defence of the realm is our priority in the Ministry of Defence. It is a priority for any Government, but we are reconfiguring our armed forces to comply with the SDSR. As I hope I have made plain to the House, although we are reducing the number of regulars over time, we are increasing the number of reservists, and I believe we can achieve that new balance in good time.

Barry Sheerman: Let me tell the Minister that I have never served in the armed forces, but I come from a family of soldiers and I think I have every right to comment today and ask him this. Does he not realise that what he has said today—yet more cuts to our capacity to defend this country—and what the Prime Minister will probably say about Europe tomorrow really means that we will look back on these few days in our history as the end of our country as a significant player in the world peace movement?

Mark Francois: I do not agree with that last assertion. If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I will not comment on the Prime Minister’s speech tomorrow; there will be no shortage of comments on that anyway. Coming back to the hon. Gentleman’s earlier question of whether we understood that this was a difficult process: yes, of course we do. Do we believe that it is necessary for the reasons that we have outlined? Yes, we do. Will we do it as fairly and equitably as possible? Yes, we will.

Julian Brazier: I support this announcement, painful as it is for many individuals and their families who have given so much service. My right hon. Friend has shown commendable support for building the reserves, but will he confirm that our target for reserves is proportionately the smallest of any country in the English-speaking world?

Mark Francois: My hon. Friend is probably the greatest living expert in the House on the reserve forces, so I shall not contradict him here and now. I pay tribute to his work on the reserves commission and to all the preparatory work that he and others, including the vice-chief of the defence staff, undertook in order to put us in the position of having £1.8 billion of resources over 10 years to grow our reserves and to make that a practical reality. I thank him for all that he has done on that.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister for his reassurance about retraining for those who have life after military service. This is not just about the value of military redundancies and the reallocation of housing, however; it is also about mortgages for new houses and how best those people should use their redundancy packages. What monetary advice will the Minister give to those who receive redundancy packages?

Mark Francois: We provide financial advice to members of the armed forces at various stages of their careers. When applicants—and non-applicants—go through the redundancy process, the career transition partnership provides them with considerable assistance. I believe that discussions on their financial situation, and on what jobs they might apply for, form a part of that process.

Christopher Pincher: The shadow Secretary of State said on Radio 5 Live that there was a logic to making these painful cuts to our armed forces, but does my right hon. Friend agree that there is no logic to the Opposition’s assertion that the SDSR should be reopened and rewritten?

Mark Francois: The Opposition cannot will the reopening of the SDSR unless they are prepared to will the additional means to do so. My understanding of their current position is that they wish to will it in spirit but admit that they do not have the money.

Thomas Docherty: In 2012, did the TA hit or miss its recruitment target, and if it missed it, by how much?

Mark Francois: I have already accepted that there were some blockages in the recruitment pipeline. I was aware that there had been difficulties, but I can assure the House that I investigated the problem at close range, as some generals can testify. I believe that those blockages have now been cleared, and that our recruitment and retention—which is also critical—will now improve.

Bob Russell: I do not support cutting the British Army to its smallest size since the battle of Waterloo. The Minister is aware of the two-faced approach taken by the Ministry of Defence to those with broken service who volunteered for redundancy in the last tranche. Will he give the House an assurance that no soldier will be treated so shabbily this time?

Mark Francois: I know that my hon. Friend takes a close interest in all matters military, not least because of Colchester garrison in his constituency, but I do not believe that we have been “two-faced”, as he put it. I do
	not accept that assertion, but if he wants to write to me with details of any particular case, I will of course look into them.

Ian Paisley Jnr: I am sure that, like me, the Minister is delighted by the safe return to our nation of His Royal Highness Prince Harry and his colleagues. Our nation is of course grateful for their service. With regard to the Minister’s answers today, will he provide a briefing to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee on this issue? The Committee has opened an investigation into how the military covenant and redundancies will impact on service personnel in Ulster.

Mark Francois: I am sure that the whole House will join me in paying tribute to the service of His Royal Highness in theatre in Afghanistan. Captain Wales, as I understand he prefers to be known in the Army, has done well for his country and his service, and we commend him for that. On the hon. Gentleman’s specific question, I am aware of the military contribution that has come from Northern Ireland down the years, and I hope to visit Northern Ireland in the next few months. With regard to my appearing before the Select Committee, I shall take advice on the matter but, in principle, if it asks me to come, I will be there.

Jeremy Lefroy: If I understood my right hon. Friend correctly, there will be not much more than a month’s gap between the announcement later this year on who is to be deployed to Afghanistan and the date on which the redundancies will be announced. How will that affect those who might or might not be deployed, including the 3rd Battalion the Mercian Regiment, the Staffords?

Mark Francois: My hon. Friend has listened carefully to what has been said, and he is right to suggest that, because of the drawdown of our forces profile in Afghanistan, it will only be in April 2013 that we decide exactly which units will be going there. Clearly, it will then be a priority to look at anyone who might no longer be excluded from redundancy, but in effect, most of those who are in fields that are eligible for redundancy at the moment will have been notified by the chain of command this morning, in parallel with the process of notifying the House.

Diana Johnson: Hull has always been a strong recruiting ground for the armed forces, but alongside these redundancies, pay and pensions are being cut and many will be affected by the strivers’ tax and the bedroom tax. As I understand it, the cuts that have already been announced will mean that the entire British Army will fit into Wembley stadium by 2020. Will the Minister tell me whether the Prime Minister’s statement yesterday about being able to fight a decades-long campaign against global terrorism was realistic?

Mark Francois: I understand it, once we have our reserves at full strength, the British Army will not be able to fit inside Wembley stadium.

Oliver Colvile: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that this announcement will not have an impact on the Royal Navy or the Royal Marines, which have already seen a reduction in their numbers? Will he also keep me in touch with the impact that the redundancies will have on the Army units attached to 3 Commando Brigade, and especially to 29 Commando, based at the Royal Citadel in Plymouth?

Mark Francois: Yes, I will attempt to keep my hon. Friend in touch, as he requests. The Royal Navy and Royal Air Force were affected in tranches 1 and 2. Tranche 3 relates solely to the Army.

Nick Smith: How many additional special forces does the Minister foresee being needed in the light of yesterday’s statement by the Prime Minister?

Mark Francois: We are normally slightly circumspect about commenting in the House of Commons on special forces, and particularly on special forces operations, for reasons that the House will understand very well. In principle, however, as we look to rebalance the size of the armed forces—both regular and reserve—we will clearly look at our special forces requirements in the light of that exercise.

David Nuttall: Last week’s Bury Times reported on the final closure of the town’s Army careers office, and quoted the commander for regional recruiting, Lieutenant Colonel Leanda Pitt, as saying:
	“The Army is still recruiting in Bury and there are jobs available now”.
	Will the Minister confirm that, if the planned disbandment of the 2nd Battalion the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers proceeds, any Fusiliers likely to be made redundant will, as far as possible, be retrained to fill any vacancies?

Mark Francois: That was, in a sense, several questions in one. With regard to recruitment offices, the armed forces, like many other organisations, have had to be aware of the way in which the world has changed. Many people who apply to join the armed forces now do so initially online, rather than walking into a recruiting office in the traditional way. Nevertheless, a number of people still use recruiting offices, so we have rearranged the profile of our offices around the country to try to adjust to life in the 21st century. My hon. Friend also asked about people in the regular armed forces who might be made redundant. Of course, one opportunity would be for them to rejoin as a member of the reserve forces, and we would encourage them to do that wherever possible.

Heidi Alexander: On 31 December, I wrote to the Minister on behalf of a cross-party group of Members to request a meeting with him about the significant financial losses faced by Army officers who are made redundant shortly before their immediate pension point. Given the responsibility shouldered by those officers during their careers, will the Minister now agree to have that meeting?

Mark Francois: I will consider that request very carefully. I have discussed the matter with representatives of the Army Families Federation and I can assure the hon. Lady that I have looked at the question extremely carefully. I have spent quite a bit of time with officials—[Interruption.] If hon. Members will allow me, I will continue. I have spent quite a bit of time looking at this with officials; it is a very difficult issue. Wherever we draw the line, there will always be some people who are just on the other side of it, and therefore there are always likely to be some people who will miss out. However, if someone leaves the service close to their pension point but not at it, we increase the compensation payment they receive in order to take account of that. Having checked, I found that those payments are, on average, in the order of £70,000 tax-free, and for some higher ranks they could be as much as £100,000 or more—again, untaxed. We have tried to look at the issue sympathetically.

Andrew Bridgen: From my experience as a private sector employer, I know that ex-service personnel can make excellent and productive employees. Will my right hon. Friend give to the House information held by the MOD about the employability and job prospects of those who previously served in our armed forces?

Mark Francois: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. Ex-armed forces personnel are inherently highly employable, as testified by the fact, as I said earlier, that over 90% of those who go through the career transition partnership have found a job within six months. People often want to employ ex-members of the armed forces because they are a quality product. We will do everything we can through the CTP to support applicants or non-applicants who leave the forces to ensure that as many of them as possible find new careers.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Historically, many areas with the highest recruitment and employment in the armed forces are also those areas with the highest levels of joblessness, such as the south Wales valleys. On the basis that many of those facing redundancy will return to communities with high levels of joblessness, what additional support will be focused on those areas that have also traditionally had the highest levels of recruitment?

Mark Francois: I completely understand the hon. Gentleman’s question on behalf of his constituents. As I understand it, however, the figures I was given on what might be called re-employability apply across the UK, so they also apply to Wales. I believe we are doing well in getting new jobs for people in Wales. It is a UK average, but if there is a particular issue regarding Wales, I will look into it and come back to him.

Stephen Mosley: At a time when all the headlines are concerned with reductions in the strength of our armed forces, how will the Minister convey the message to potential recruits that the Army is still recruiting?

Mark Francois: It is. Some suggestions have been made that because of the redundancy programme we should end recruiting—[Interruption.] Hang on. Past experience
	shows that if we turn off the recruiting pipeline for a few years, we end up with a black hole in our armed forces structure some years on, which will subsequently be difficult to fill. As I have said, we have reduced the recruitment of regulars as far as we think we practically can, but there comes a point beyond which it is not safe to reduce recruiting efforts for the regulars. We have been mindful of that in going forward. We still want people to join the regular Army.

Duncan Hames: I thank the Minister for his thoughtful response to the question asked by the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) about those service personnel made redundant, who are calling themselves the “unpensionables”. Given his concerns about the difficulty of setting a cut-off point for those payments, will he consider a gradually accrued entitlement approach to the issue?

Mark Francois: My hon. Friend has obviously looked at this. If he is referring to what some call the taper model, then we have looked at it, but we do not think it works practically. There is then the further difficult problem about the legacy issue of what to do about tranches 1 and 2. It is not as straightforward as it sometimes looks. I can assure the House that I have tried to look at the issue very carefully, but I am not sure, for some of the reasons I have outlined, that we can change the position. We know it is a difficult subject, but wherever we draw the line, there will always be someone just on the other side of it.

Robert Halfon: Will my right hon. Friend reassure us that armed personnel who have suffered significant injuries will not be subject to these redundancies?

Mark Francois: They will not. We have special provisions and procedures in place for dealing with people who have been seriously wounded in the service of their country. In essence, the policy is that they do not leave the service until it is in their interest and in the interest of the service for them to do so. If anyone is in any doubt about the dedication we provide to our seriously wounded, I would advise them to visit Headley Court, as they would be massively impressed by what they saw.

Philip Hollobone: It is very encouraging and not surprising that, because of their professionalism, skills, training and tremendous work ethic, 97% of armed forces personnel who are made redundant find alternative employment within 12 months. Because of the individual example they can set for our young people, we need more ex-service personnel in our schools. What discussions is the Minister having with the Department for Education to make sure that we get large numbers of our former troops changing into teachers?

Mark Francois: Again, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s service, particularly in respect of the reserve forces. He may know of the troops to teachers programme, which is run in accordance with the Department for Education to encourage ex-servicemen to go into a teaching career, as they often provide experienced authority figures, particularly in areas where some children come from difficult and disadvantaged backgrounds. We also have
	a programme to expand cadet units in schools, particularly in state schools. We have a target of 100 new cadet units in state schools by 2015. So far, we have had expressions of interest from some 70 schools, and some new cadet units have already opened. The programme is well on track.

David Mowat: Will the Minister confirm that these redundancies will take place pro rata across all ranks, and that nothing in the statement will cause a drift towards a top-heavy Army?

Mark Francois: We had a separate review of senior posts in the Ministry of Defence. We have already reduced the rank, as it were, of some appointments, so it would be unfair to say that senior officers are being completely excluded from changes in the structure of our armed forces. They are not. We are mindful of trying to deliver this in as balanced a way as possible. I hope that, if nothing else, I have managed to convince the House that we have thought about this matter. While this is a very difficult process, we are attempting to do it as sympathetically and fairly as practically possible. We are not magicians, but we are genuinely doing our best.

Unduly Lenient Sentences (Right of Appeal)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Gareth Johnson: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to extend the powers of prosecuting authorities to appeal against unduly lenient sentences imposed in the criminal courts.
	This Bill aims to correct a fundamental flaw that exists in our criminal justice system. It is currently the case that the defence is able to appeal as of right against any sentence imposed at the magistrates or youth courts, and it may also appeal through leave of a judge against any sentence imposed in the Crown courts. Yet the prosecution has no ability whatsoever to appeal against a sentence imposed at the magistrates or youth courts and only in a few cases at the Crown court. This is the case no matter how insufficient the sentence.
	It is simply wrong for the defence to be able to appeal a sentence if it is too harsh, but not the prosecution if it is too lenient. I do not seek to reduce or change the rights of the defence to appeal. It is right that it can appeal against sentences that are manifestly wrong, but what is right for one side is surely right for the other. I have worked in the criminal justice system for over 20 years. I do not seek to lay blame at the door of the magistracy or judiciary. My quarrel is with the system in which we in this House ask them to operate. We must have a criminal justice system where the scales of justice balance, not one where—in the case of sentencing, at least—the offender is favoured over the victim of crime.
	I have met both the Justice Secretary and the Attorney-General to discuss this issue, and had very positive meetings with them. Through you, Mr Speaker, I thank them for the time they gave me. I concede that the Bill involves a cost element and that an extra burden would be placed on the Attorney-General’s office, but that burden would be fully justified in the minds of the public, who are tired of feeling that the system favours not the law-keeper but only the law-breaker.
	Let me explain why I believe that the Bill is necessary. If, for instance, someone burgles a person’s home, violates his very household, is caught by the police, and is given less than a slap on the wrist, the public rightly look to the system and the House to provide a solution, but currently there is none. That burglar can be let off without the possibility of appeal from the prosecution, but if the court sentence goes too high the defence can appeal, and that is simply not right. We should ensure that courts never feel that they can be as lenient as they like without consequences but cannot sentence too robustly, which is the danger under the current system.
	Let me give the House an even more frightening example. Let us suppose that the burglar whom I mentioned ransacked an occupied home at night, drove away in the owner’s car in a careless manner and killed someone by his careless driving, maliciously wounded a police officer when apprehended, caused an affray, in the process of his arrest was found to be in possession of a knife, drugs and child pornography, and later intimidated the witnesses to the offence. There is nothing, absolutely nothing, that the prosecution could do if he were let off with, say, a £50 fine.
	That is simply not right. The law needs to change to amend a ludicrous and, indeed, dangerous situation that makes me wonder why we have our current system. Why is there such an obvious imbalance in the judicial process? Surely no one believes that our courts are incapable of making a mistake. Courts do make mistakes, and we therefore need a mechanism to right the wrongs that will inevitably occur in any judicial system.
	We also need younger people to have confidence in our judicial system. The fact that only the defence can appeal against a sentence imposed in the youth court creates a huge danger that young people, as victims of crime, will feel that the system simply does not care about them. The youth court deals with some extremely serious cases, including cases involving the offence of rape. Great efforts have been made in the House of Commons and the other place, by the police, and by the wider public to encourage rape victims to report the crimes in question. How does that square with the fact that the prosecution cannot appeal against an unduly lenient sentence imposed on a rapist in the youth court, while the rapist can appeal if the court has been too tough on him? How does that encourage more rape victims to come forward? The simple fact is that it does not.
	There is a gaping hole in our criminal justice system when it comes to sentencing; a hole that has been overlooked, ignored or pushed aside for far too long. It is time that we allowed the prosecution to have the same access to sentencing appeals as the defence. It is time that we adopted a common-sense approach to sentencing that is balanced and fair and treats both sides equally. I hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading, so that victims of crime can be put back at the heart of our criminal justice system.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Ordered,
	That Gareth Johnson, Jim Shannon, Alec Shelbrooke, Henry Smith, Mr Dominic Raab, Mr Robert Buckland, Stephen McPartland, Mr Marcus Jones, Nick de Bois, Gavin Williamson and Karl McCartney present the Bill.
	Gareth Johnson accordingly presented the Bill.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 1 March and to be printed (Bill 122).

Philip Davies: I won’t be talking that one out.

Mr Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson) is very grateful for that assurance, which will be noted in the record. I do not think that it is very likely to be repeated.

Chris Bryant: It would be disorderly to talk the Bill out.

Mr Speaker: It would no doubt be disorderly, as has helpfully been indicated from a sedentary position, in a disorderly way, by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant).

Succession to the Crown Bill (Allocation of Time)

Mr Speaker: Before I call the Minister to move the motion, I should inform the House that the amendments in the name of the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) have been selected.

Chloe Smith: I beg to move,
	That the following provisions shall apply to the proceedings on the Succession to the Crown Bill—
	Timetable
	1.–(1) Proceedings on Second Reading and in Committee, any proceedings on consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall be completed in two days in accordance with the following provisions of this Order.
	(2) Proceedings on Second Reading and in Committee shall be completed at today’s sitting.
	(3) Proceedings on Second Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion four hours after the commencement of proceedings on this Motion.
	(4) Proceedings in Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion six hours after the commencement of proceedings on this Motion.
	(5) Any proceedings on consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall be completed on the second day.
	(6) Any proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the second day.
	(7) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on the second day.
	Timing of proceedings and Questions to be put
	2. When the Bill has been read a second time—
	(a) it shall, despite Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills not subject to a programme order), stand committed to a Committee of the whole House without any Question being put;
	(b) the Speaker shall leave the Chair whether or not notice of an Instruction has been given.
	3. On the conclusion of proceedings in Committee, the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.
	4. For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1, the Chairman or Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others) in the same order as they would fall to be put if this Order did not apply— (a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
	(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;
	(c) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;
	(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded.
	5. On a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
	6. If two or more Questions would fall to be put under paragraph 4(c) on successive amendments moved or Motions made by a Minister of the Crown, the Chairman or Speaker shall instead put a single Question in relation to those amendments or Motions.
	7. If two or more Questions would fall to be put under paragraph 4(d) in relation to successive provisions of the Bill, the Chairman shall instead put a single Question in relation to those provisions, except that the Question shall be put separately on any Clause of or Schedule to the Bill which a Minister of the Crown has signified an intention to leave out.
	Consideration of Lords Amendments
	8.–(1) Any Lords Amendments to the Bill may be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly.
	(2) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall be brought to a conclusion (so far as not previously concluded) one hour after their commencement; and any proceedings suspended under sub-paragraph (1) shall thereupon be resumed.
	9.–(1) This paragraph applies for the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 8.
	(2) The Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question already proposed from the Chair.
	(3) If that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment the Speaker shall then put forthwith—
	(a) a single Question on any further Amendments to the Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown, and
	(b) the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown that this House agrees or disagrees to the Lords Amendment or (as the case may be) to the Lords Amendment as amended.
	(4) The Speaker shall then put forthwith—
	(a) a single Question on any Amendments moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment, and
	(b) the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown that this House agrees or disagrees to the Lords Amendment or (as the case may be) to the Lords Amendment as amended.
	(5) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown that this House disagrees to a Lords Amendment.
	(6) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question that this House agrees to all the remaining Lords Amendments.
	(7) As soon as the House has—
	(a) agreed or disagreed to a Lords Amendment; or
	(b) disposed of an Amendment relevant to a Lords Amendment which has been disagreed to, the Speaker shall put forthwith a single Question on any Amendments that are moved by a Minister of the Crown and are relevant to the Lords Amendment.
	Subsequent stages
	10.–(1) Any further Message from the Lords on the Bill may be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly.
	(2) Proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement; and any proceedings suspended under sub-paragraph (1) shall thereupon be resumed.
	11.–(1) This paragraph applies for the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 10.
	(2) The Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has been proposed from the Chair.
	(3) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair.
	(4) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on or relevant to any of the remaining items in the Lords Message.
	(5) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question that this House agrees with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.
	Reasons Committee
	12.–(1) The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the appointment, nomination and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the appointment of its Chair.
	(2) A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which it is appointed.
	(3) Proceedings in the Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion 30 minutes after their commencement.
	(4) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with sub-paragraph (3), the Chair shall—
	(a) first put forthwith any Question which has been proposed from the Chair, and
	(b) then put forthwith successively Questions on motions which may be made by a Minister of the Crown for assigning a Reason for disagreeing with the Lords in any of their Amendments.
	(5) The proceedings of the Committee shall be reported without any further Question being put.
	Miscellaneous
	13. Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business) shall apply so far as necessary for the purposes of this Order.
	14.–(1) The proceedings on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.
	(2) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business) shall apply to those proceedings.
	15. Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply in relation to any proceedings to which this Order applies.
	16.–(1) No Motion shall be made, except by a Minister of the Crown, to alter the order in which any proceedings on the Bill are taken or to recommit the Bill.
	(2) The Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
	17.–(1) No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to proceedings to which this Order applies except by a Minister of the Crown.
	(2) The Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
	18. The Speaker may not arrange for a debate to be held in accordance with Standing Order No. 24 (Emergency debates) on a day on which the Bill has been set down to be taken as an Order of the Day before the conclusion of any proceedings to which this Order applies.
	19.–(1) This paragraph applies if the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the conclusion of any proceedings to which this Order applies.
	(2) No notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.
	20. Proceedings to which this Order applies shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
	21.–(1) Any private business which has been set down for consideration at 7.00 pm, 4.00 pm or 2.00 pm (as the case may be) on a day on which the Bill has been set down to be taken as an Order of the Day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day.
	(2) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or, if those proceedings are concluded before the moment of interruption, for a period equal to the time elapsing between 7.00 pm, 4.00 pm or 2.00 pm (as the case may be) and the conclusion of those proceedings.
	The Government tabled the motion in order to provide two days of discussion of the Bill in the House of Commons. It is a very short Bill, with just five clauses and one schedule, and it has been tightly drafted to give effect to the agreement by Commonwealth realm Heads of Government to change the rules governing succession to the Crown. It will remove the male bias in the line of succession and the bar on the heir to the throne from marrying a Catholic, and replace the Royal Marriages Act 1772 with provisions that are suitable for the present day. I am confident that all Members will agree that those are laudable aims. They have been public since the Perth announcement in 2011, and I am very pleased that they have cross-party support. Having secured the full agreement of all realms to the text of the Bill,
	the Government are now keen to make progress as quickly as possible. We believe that, given the narrow scope of the Bill, two days of debate in this place will be ample.

Wayne David: We support the motion.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I beg to move amendment (a), in paragraph 1(3), after ‘Reading’, insert
	‘and on any Instruction to the Committee on the Bill that has been selected by the Speaker, which shall be debated with the Second Reading,’.

Mr Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider amendment (b), leave out paragraph 2(b).

Jacob Rees-Mogg: We are discussing what may be the most important constitutional issue to which the House has ever turned its mind, namely, who shall be our sovereign? Who shall be eligible to receive perhaps the greatest office in the world? Who shall be the King or Queen of England?
	When the Bill that became the Act of Settlement was debated, it spent six days in Committee. The allocation of time motion allows us two days in which to treat this Bill as if it were anti-terrorism legislation, which seems a particularly inopportune comparison given that it relates to matters that could not be further removed from that type of activity. As far as I am aware, the only constitutional Bill that has been treated to such a small amount of time—or, rather, an even smaller amount—is the Bill that became His Majesty’s Declaration of Abdication Act 1936, which, I believe, completed its passage in the House of Commons in under a minute; but that, too, is not a happy precedent.

Chris Bryant: Is not the point that there really was rather an emergency on that occasion? The King had signified his abdication the previous day, and on 12 December the House had to enact, because there was no existing means of enabling the King to abdicate.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: For once I am in agreement with the hon. Gentleman. There was a genuine emergency then, but it is hard to see that there is a genuine emergency now. I am a great admirer of the Deputy Prime Minister and Lord President of the Council, because he has managed, in his role and in the coalition, to put into effect what Palmerston promised: that the Government would eventually run out of matters on which to legislate. It is not as if we have an enormously packed legislative programme waiting for this House to turn its mind to and to pass. We spend hours debating the taxation of lorries and other such matters, which get a full day allocated for Second Reading, whereas the succession to the Crown is to be dealt with in a truncated Second Reading debate, a brief Committee stage, and then one day for the remaining stages. That seems to me to be an insult to the nation, to our sovereign and, indeed, to Parliament.

Ian Paisley Jnr: Is it the hon. Gentleman’s understanding, as it is mine, that significant subsequent legislative changes will be required to no fewer than nine Acts of Parliament—the Bill of Rights, the Act of Settlement, the Union with Scotland Act 1706, the Coronation Oath Act 1688, the Princess Sophia’s Precedence Act 1711, the Royal Marriages Act 1772, the Union with Ireland Act 1800, the Accession Declaration Act 1910 and the Regency Act 1937—and that we require more time to explore the implications and impact of those changes?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Again, I am in agreement with the hon. Gentleman. We need time to consider constitutional issues properly, because they have complex knock-on effects and their phraseology is crucial to how the Crown might pass in future. If mistakes are made now, we could discover that we end up with consequences that we do not want, or indeed—this comes back to my amendments to this allocation of time motion—that we are not able to consider matters that are very pertinent to parts of the Bill because the phrasing is too narrow and things have been done within a time limit that makes it very hard to extend into these issues.
	My amendments seek to allow for an instruction to be debated that would widen the scope of the Bill to include the consequence of a marriage to a Catholic. I speak as a Catholic or, in the terminology of the Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement, as a “Papist”—as a member of the “Popish” religion—and I am happy to do so. I find no shame in being called that; I rather prefer it to the more politically correct phraseology of “person of the Roman Catholic faith”, which is rather middle-management-speak, if I may say so.
	It is proposed in the Bill that a Catholic may marry an heir to the throne but may not then maintain the succession by bringing up a child of that marriage as a Catholic. The reason I object to that is because it is an attack on the teaching of the Catholic Church. Canon 1125 states specifically that the bishop, who can give a dispensation for a Catholic to marry a non-Catholic, is not to do so unless
	“the Catholic party is to declare that he or she is prepared to remove dangers of defecting from the faith and is to make a sincere promise to do all in his or her power so that all offspring are baptized and brought up in the Catholic Church”.
	When I got married, it was with great pleasure and joy that I was able to make that promise, because there is no finer thing to be able to pass on to one’s children than one’s own religion; there is nothing finer than to have that hope of faith, that joy of salvation that comes from passing on what has come from one’s own forebears through the generations. In this Bill and under this allocation of time motion, the House is not allowed to consider the natural consequence of what is being proposed by Her Majesty’s Government. I would therefore like the amendment to be made so that we are able to consider the natural consequences of what the legislation proposes.
	I would like us to also be able to amend the legislation so that a child of such a marriage that the law would allow could be a Catholic, but to protect the position of the Church of England, which obviously cannot be led by a non-member of that Church, so that under the Regency Act 1937 a regent would be appointed to take on the role of Supreme Governor of the Church of
	England and to hold the title “Defender of the Faith”—a papal title that has been taken by the Crown since the reign of Henry VIII. That is an entirely logical extension of what is proposed in the Bill and time ought to be allowed to debate it, because when we start these changes and decide that in this modern age we need to be more politically correct and allow Catholics to marry into the throne, we have to consider the consequence.
	The consequence of what is being proposed is to leave in the deeply hostile anti-Catholic language contained in the Act of Settlement and the Bill of Rights. Such language would not conceivably be used by any Member of this House in this more modern age. The consequence is to leave all that, but to take out just a few words. If I may, Mr Speaker, it might be worth my reading out a little of this language:
	“And whereas it hath beene found by Experience that it is inconsistent with the Safety and Welfaire of this Protestant Kingdome to be governed by a Popish Prince or by any King or Queene marrying a Papist the said Lords Spirituall and Temporall and Commons doe further pray that it may be enacted That all and every person and persons that is are or shall be reconciled to or shall hold Communion with the See or Church of Rome or shall professe the Popish Religion or shall marry a Papist shall be excluded and be for ever uncapeable to inherit possesse or enjoy the Crowne and Government of this Realme”.
	We are proposing to remove from that fewer than a dozen words and leave the main substance intact. I would happily accept no change at all, because that is the history of our nation.

Gerald Howarth: My hon. Friend is an extremely great man. As a churchwarden in the Church of England, I salute the Catholic Church for its adherence to a principle that has not always been so prevalent in the Church of England. He raises some interesting points, and his amendment proposing that there should a regent who should be responsible for answering to the Church of England would create a fundamental change in our constitution. Accordingly, I entirely agree with him that this matter should not be rushed through this House or through Parliament. We should not trifle with the constitution of this realm in such a fashion, so I support entirely what he has just said.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend because that is the crux of my view. Let us suppose that we were to make no change. We live with the great history of this nation day by day, and it is a history that I am proud of and love; when we change it, we have to think carefully about the words we use. We have to think about the great offence given to Her Majesty’s loyal Catholic subjects by going back to the language of the Act of Settlement with a minor amendment.

Alan Beith: If the House were to require more time, it would be to absorb the shock of the hon. Gentleman turning from so eloquent a proponent as things as they are to someone who wants to remove, at one stroke, the Act of Settlement, the Act of Union and the Glorious Revolution of 1688. What has turned him from a man of conservative instincts to a radical firebrand in such a short time?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The answer is simple: the amendments being introduced by Her Majesty’s Government. There is no need to change the Act of Settlement and there is no need to make this provision for a Catholic to marry into the Crown, but once we start fiddling, we have to do it properly.

Chris Bryant: I rather agree with the hon. Gentleman. Of course it may be that he is a true Tory and he is not happy that some of this legislation was Whig legislation. He referred to some specific words in the Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement:
	“is are or shall be reconciled to or shall hold Communion with the See or Church of Rome”.
	If an Anglican marries a Catholic in a Catholic service in a Catholic church, it is difficult to argue that that person is not reconciled to or holding communion with the see or Church of Rome. That is precisely the kind of issue we need to tease out.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Once again, I am in agreement with the hon. Gentleman. That is why it is so important that we should have proper time for this debate and to debate the full ramifications of what the Government are trying to do. The argument that the measure has been agreed by Her Majesty’s other realms is not sufficient. It needs to have been thought through properly in one of her realms first, before we see whether the other realms will accept it. Yes, there might be a child—a happy event for Their Royal Highnesses the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge—and let us hope that that is the case, but there would be no harm in allowing the legislation to be dated from today, even if that birth were to take place. There is no urgency. The succession is apparently very secure: the heir apparent is a youngish man and so is his son.

Angus MacNeil: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that we would surely hope that no other realm would spend any less time discussing the measure than it looks like we will spend on it this afternoon?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Of course, the sovereign is also King or Queen of Scotland, which is a very important title.
	I do not wish to detain the House any longer, but I think that this is a matter of fundamental importance. We are changing that part of our constitution that is most precious in a rush, as if it is anti-terrorist legislation, and we are not allowing ourselves proper time to consider all the ramifications of what is entailed by Her Majesty’s Government’s position. I therefore hope that the House will consider accepting my amendment to make some improvement to the Bill, although I fear that it still will not allow sufficient time for all one might wish to discuss.

Keith Vaz: It is always a huge pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg). I must declare my interest as he has—not that I have any ambitions to marry anyone who is in line to succession to the throne—

Nicholas Soames: Just as well.

Keith Vaz: As I am already married—

David Winnick: He would if he could.

Keith Vaz: But I am a Catholic—

Mr Speaker: Order. I think it was the right hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames)—if I am wrong, so be it—who muttered from a sedentary position that it was just as well that the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) had no such intention. I ought also to point out that it is just as well for Mrs Maria Vaz.

Keith Vaz: It is indeed, Mr Speaker, and I am most grateful to you for reminding me of my wife’s name.
	The interest I should declare is that I too am a Catholic, although, unlike the hon. Member for North East Somerset, I am not from one of the grand Catholic houses. An even greater Catholic than the hon. Gentleman—if there is such a person—the Archbishop of Westminster, has written to the Government to confirm that the Catholic Church supports what the Government are doing, or at the very least does not object to the proposals.
	I believe that we need to get on with this, partly because of the happy royal event that will take place some time in July, and also because I introduced my ten-minute rule Bill on the subject on 18 January 2011, following a number of right hon. and hon. Members who in preceding centuries have produced ten-minute rule Bills—if such a device existed before the last century—to try to do exactly the same thing: to modernise the monarchy and provide for equality. I think the previous Member to do that was the former Member for Oxford West and Abingdon, before he lost his seat. Such legislation has a long history and the Government are right to fast-track the Bill and provide, in my view, generous time for it to be discussed. I know that the hon. Member for North East Somerset said that anti-terrorism legislation takes longer, but terrorism order debates that I have attended have had much less time allocated on the Floor of the House.
	The first argument for getting on with this is the royal event that will take place shortly. Of course, the Commonwealth agreed the measure on 28 October 2011 and, as the Prime Minister has said, it is retrospective, but it would be absurd if the royal child was born before Parliament deliberated changing the law. It is much better that we should do it now.
	I pay tribute to the Deputy Prime Minister for the amount of time he has spent on this issue. It is clearly not one of the Government’s great priorities, but he has spent a lot of face time in meetings with me and with many others, and spoken to Heads of Government throughout the Commonwealth. I am grateful to him for what he has done. Let us get on with it, let us have the debate and let us pass this legislation.

John Hemming: I rise to speak in support of the amendments. My concern about the motion is that Second Reading will be directly followed by Committee stage. The difficulty lies in the
	question of the role of Parliament, which one would presume is to legislate rather than to assent to legislation. Very often, Parliament is being driven to assent to legislation drafted in Whitehall.
	The difficulty when Committee follows Second Reading concerns our ability to review the issues that are raised on Second Reading, even though we will have further consideration on Monday. The Bill of Rights, for example, was not just a matter between Parliament and the Crown; it involved the people of the country, too. The process of producing this Bill offers us no clarity about how to involve the people of this country in potentially important constitutional changes. I accept that that is not necessary in this case, but there would be circumstances in which a threshold might be met. If we changed documents that, when drafted, said that they could not be changed, that would require assent from the population. That has been accepted in relation to changes to our relationship and settlement with the EU. Perhaps we should be considering more widely when the people should be involved in decisions on constitutional changes, through a referendum or some other mechanism.
	Other issues have not been sorted out, such as the lack of equality of treatment between a Queen and a King. A Queen cannot decide what to call her spouse, whereas a King can call his spouse either Queen or Princess Consort. Those questions are not being considered. We need time for issues raised on Second Reading to come back to the House in a proper manner. I accept that, unusually, amendments were allowed to be tabled before Second Reading, but in the future we should avoid Committee stage following Second Reading immediately.

Paul Flynn: I warmly support the amendment proposed by the firebrand for North East Somerset. There is an extraordinary coalition of opinion behind the view that more time should be given: it includes royalists, republicans and, allegedly, a member of the royal family, although we cannot draw on his name in support of it. We find ourselves in that position because we have opened Pandora’s box. Long-established opinion was that we should not touch the Act of Settlement at all—it was part of the settled constitution of the land; many people, including Catholics, were opposed to any change; and even though others regarded the gender bias as a outrage, they did not want to open the succession to the throne to further debate—but as we are having the debate now, and as we have these debates only once every 300 years, it is worth suggesting some reforms appropriate for future centuries.
	There is no hurry to pass this Bill. If we change the reference to children “born after 28 October” to children “whenever born”, that would solve a number of problems, including the problem of whether it can be applied to the birth of the royal child and in the future. If this is such a splendid idea, I cannot see any reason why it should not operate straight away. It is unlikely that it would have many effects, because most of the possible senior inheritors of the throne are male anyway.
	We must consider the opinion of this country on the choice that was handed down to us at a time when they believed in the divine right of kings. I can remember Alf Garnett pointing out to the “Scouse git”, in the manner
	of working-class knowledge, that royalty were descended from God, and I was told as a child that they had blue blood in their veins, but I think we can now regard royalty as being as good and virtuous, or as frail and fragile, as the rest of us. We are unanimous in paying tribute to Her Majesty, who has had a faultless reign in which she has made no attempt to meddle in politics, but if we look back at history, that has not always been the case. We have had plenty of monarchs who were mad, bad or sad—some all three—and we cannot say with any certainty that future monarchs will have the same personality and strength of character as the Queen.
	Apart from their ceremonial rule, the monarch plays a crucial role as Head of State. Insufficient attention has been given to what Robert Rhodes James, a greatly respected Member of the House and historian, wrote about the situation in the Conservative party when it was about to topple Margaret Thatcher as Prime Minister. He said that there was great concern in the top echelons of the Tory party about the fact that Mrs Thatcher wanted to call a general election. Parliament could not stop her; the Conservative party could not stop her; the Cabinet could not stop her; but the monarch could. In that situation, the monarch would act and play a vital role as Head of State by overruling a Prime Minister who was acting in their own interests rather than the interests of the country.
	It is important that we consider the personality and character of the next Head of State, and I believe that there is a case for considering skipping a generation. It should be up to the public to decide. If the Queen lives as long as her mother, as we all hope she does, we are unlikely to have a change of Head of State for another 20 years, at which time the present heir will be in his late 80s. There will be other considerations, too: doubts have been expressed about his personality and involvement in politics. We should have more time to discuss all the amendments that have been tabled, including the proposal that the public should consider skipping a generation.

Eleanor Laing: I very much welcome the Bill, and the time that we have to debate it in the House today. Indeed, I do not just welcome it: I, and others like me, have been calling for such a Bill for many years on the ground that we should not have to do this as a matter of urgency, as it is now. I do not blame the Government, who have taken action—indeed, I break with personal tradition and compliment the Deputy Prime Minister on the action that he took in negotiating with our Commonwealth partners to reach this legislative stage—but previous Governments should have taken action on this long ago.
	Given the current situation, I appreciate that there is some urgency, but I wish to ask a genuine question of the Minister. It is difficult to understand, as my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) so eloquently argued, why that urgency means that we have to take more than one stage of the Bill in one day. There is some urgency, but we are not so close to the end of the parliamentary Session or, indeed, to the imminent birth of the new member of the royal family that we could not have more than one day to debate the Bill. I raise the issue because, in general,
	I have a constant concern that constitutional Bills should be treated properly on the Floor of the House, which means having not just sufficient time, but more time than is allocated to ordinary Bills.

Ian Paisley Jnr: I, too, add my support to the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg). What an unlikely coalition of high Papist, tight Prod, pleb. Should we call it the “Papal Prod Pleb Alliance”, perhaps stronger than the one formed in the rose garden—who knows? Hopefully, it is an alliance that will be listened to today by the House, as we require more time.
	This is an important constitutional issue that affects all the people of all the islands of this kingdom and the many Overseas Territories of which Her Gracious Majesty is Queen. We should take time to go over all these matters and consider them. In an intervention, I said that there were many Acts on which the Bill will impact, spanning from the 1600s to the 1900s. We should look carefully at the implications of all those things. Members assume that they know the intended consequences of the Bill, and indeed we have seen some of them, but there are unintended consequences too, as well as unknown consequences. We should therefore take time to consider what those consequences are.
	Recently in Northern Ireland, we had a move to remove a symbol of our state from a public building. People thought that they knew the intended consequences, and thought that there would be minor disruption. There have been over 70 days of disruption costing many millions of pounds, because people did not take time properly to consider the consequences of that foolhardy action. Before we unpick something that is settled—the Act of Settlement, the hint is in the name: it is settled—we should take time. We should take time before we start to unravel that, perhaps causing unnecessary tension across the nation that could have consequences far beyond those intended by the Deputy Prime Minister in the Bill? I support the amendment, as we should take more time and get this matter right.

Alan Beith: I want to speak against the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), although I have some reservations about the way the Government have sought, at least initially, to timetable the Bill.
	I oppose the amendment, because it is designed to facilitate a great widening of the scope of the Bill beyond its intended purpose and into another area, beyond what was agreed by the Commonwealth Heads of Government. There may be some wider agreement on that, but it is a much bigger thing. It conjures up a nightmare vision: the hon. Member for North East Somerset, perhaps clad in a suit of armour, waving a sword that slices up all the constitutional documents to which he has previously referred with such reverence. That is why I have called him a radical firebrand all of a sudden. What is at stake is the Protestant succession, the position of the Church of England and the Church of Scotland, and the coronation oath to defend the
	Protestant reformed religion—all those things—and my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister would have been cautious about going into that territory.
	There are issues that we need to discuss, and which can be discussed within this framework, about the consequences of particular provisions, particularly for the children of a mixed marriage such as one that is envisaged, if in effect their opportunity to succeed to the throne was decided for them at an early age. We shall come on to that. My concern was greatest when the Government seemed to want to do this in one day, without an interval between any of the Bill’s stages. I would regard that as unacceptable and would vote against it if it proceeded to a vote.
	What happens when we deal with legislation is that things are discovered in Committee, and we have to do something different on Report. If we compress the time so much that we do not have an opportunity to do so, it is pretty serious. Even when that has been done in a genuine emergency with terrorism legislation, it has often led to bad consequences, and it is a bad way of legislating.

Andrew Turner: The right hon. Gentleman has just referred to the possibility of a royal son married to a woman of Roman Catholic faith. A child is born, and someone decides of which faith they shall be. Is it the woman, or the man, or even the child, after perhaps 18 years? Who would be the decider of the faith of that child?

Alan Beith: There is no answer to that question. One answer that I can give the hon. Gentleman is that it has very serious consequences, one of which would be the inclusion or exclusion of that child from the right to succeed to the throne and that decision would be taken when it was at a very early age. I hope that there will be an opportunity to discuss that, if the Committee stage is managed such that we are able to discuss the relevant clause.
	I was addressing the desirability of legislation having stages. There should be a gap between the stages, and we have now arrived at that slightly happier position because Report stage will not be for a few days. I am entirely supported in my argument by the Government’s own action in tabling an amendment to their own Bill. Having believed at an earlier stage that it could all be done in one day, they have proved that that is a bad idea. I hope they have learned a lesson from that.

Mark Durkan: I am not British and not a royalist. I am a constitutional republican and an Irish nationalist. I do not purport to know all the possible consequences of the Bill and I do not pretend to care about some of those that I do know about. However, there are aspects of the Bill and of the consequences of passing it which persuade me that more time is needed. Those who care about these various consequences should be given more time, as should those of us who want to elaborate on some of the issues involved in the Bill—such as the fact that in the 21st century we still leave such sectarian language on the statute book.
	The choice that we are making through the amendments that will result from this Bill puts a 21st century licence on arcane and offensive language. The provisions are
	quite sectarian. If a politician in Northern Ireland used the same language on a political platform, people would talk about incitement to religious hatred, but the Bill, for reasons of constitutional sensitivity, for reasons of ecclesiastical sensitivity to do with the constitutional settlement, leaves that language in place, safe and untouched.
	If we were commenting on other regimes, other countries, other states that are being built and reformed, and if they were putting such intense, offensive and exclusive religious provisions into their constitution, we would be calling for all sorts of UN standards to be observed, we would be calling for reports and applying diplomatic pressure, and we would have the Foreign Secretary and others telling us from the Dispatch Box that they were trying to offer good and wise counsel to other people and other Parliaments and urging them not to rush such provisions. But that is precisely what is happening here.
	I accept that, in the circumstances, there is obviously a timeliness and an urgency about particular provisions, specifically the gender discriminatory provision. As someone who believes fundamentally in civil rights and equality, I am for any provision that removes any layer of gender inequality from any aspect of the state’s life. Similarly, as someone absolutely committed to civil rights, I would want to support anything that removes any layer of religious discrimination. Although we are being allowed to remove one layer of religious discrimination in relation to the Bill, we are not allowed to address the others layers of religious discrimination that are still provided for and put into the infrastructure of the state. It is not the state that I particularly want to be part of. I have other aspirations in other directions, but I am not here to be subversive in any way. I have always respected the Queen and those who respect the Queen. I met her when I was Deputy First Minister—indeed, I was the first nationalist Minister to receive the Queen officially anywhere on the island of Ireland. As a Member of Parliament I have received her in my constituency and I have met her on other occasions, so I am not here in any way to disrespect. But those of us who have a different take on the Bill want time to bring up some of the issues that we want to highlight, just as we want to hear from others who want to highlight other issues.

John Hemming: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it seems as though civil servants have been tasked with writing something to deal with a very narrow issue, they have ignored all the other issues, and the programme motion is preventing Parliament from properly considering various aspects?

Mark Durkan: Yes, as happens with many such things. When the civil service and the parliamentary draftsmen are asked to look at things, their predictive text mentality focuses only on certain aspects and the rest of us cannot get any other logic or language in there. That is precisely the present situation. We do not have to take huge numbers of days to debate the Bill, but if Members are to be comfortable with how and what they are legislating, we need more time.
	The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) said that we now have separate stages, but the Report stage will be very compressed and when Lords amendments come to the House, there cannot be amendments to them in this House, as far as I can see,
	unless they are tabled by a Minister of the Crown. There will be a very short Report stage and a short stage for Lords amendments.

Ian Paisley Jnr: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and for adding to the strange and wonderful coalition that is emerging on the matter. Does he agree that the Government appear to be saying, “We cannot give you more time because we would have to go to Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Belize, St Lucia, Grenada, Antigua and Barbuda, St Christopher, St Kitts, Nevis, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon islands, Barbados, the Bahamas and Jamaica and ask them their opinions, and that is just too complex, so let’s push this through in a hurry”? That is wrong. Not only have we a right to raise all the issues that concern us, but all those other territories will have matters that are of concern to them and they should have the same rights as we have.

Mark Durkan: I accept the hon. Gentleman’s point. None of the arguments or excuses that might be offered for simply microwaving the Bill through in its present form—as the Government are doing today, without looking at the suspect content that we will still be leaving on the statute book—will stand. Those of us who are calling for more time are not calling for hugely more time, nor are we talking about the sort of grand world tour that I am sure the hon. Gentleman would love to go on to consult people in those other Chambers.
	I know that some Members, including probably the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley), have a deep allegiance to the Crown. I know that the former Member for North Antrim, who just happened to have the same name as the current hon. Member, used to state straightforwardly that he was loyal to the Crown so long as the Crown remained Protestant. I am sensitive to why people have their own issues and their own thoughts, but other people have a different conscience and a different approach.
	If some people’s loyalty or allegiance to the Crown is qualified by that religious pre-condition, those of us in the House who do not share that view have to ask why we, as the price of taking up membership in the House, are forced to recite a form of words that we do not believe. We pledge allegiance to the sovereign and to her heirs and successors, and remember, the Bill will make a change that has implications for who the heirs and successors might be. People are concerned about some of the consequences and the conundrums that might arise as a result of these changes. But I hope that those who have such sensitivities and concerns about succession will have some sensitivity to those of us who are forced, as the price of representing our constituents, to use either the affirmation or the oath. I use the affirmation, and I then hand my letter of protest about that to the Speaker. I use it under protest because I will not swear a lie. I will not swear a lie that I will bear allegiance to someone to whom—

Paul Flynn: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that the last time the House discussed an alternative oath, 140 Members voted in favour of it, for all kinds of reasons? It is reasonable that we should return to the matter and have an alternative oath for those who find
	that they are not telling the truth when they take the oath. It is possible to put words before it or after it which negate the oath.

Mark Durkan: I entirely support my hon. Friend. I indicate that I am reciting the formula only in order to represent my constituents, then I read my formula. No doubt other hon. Members have other ways of doing that. I do that, as I indicated earlier, not to be subversive or offensive in any way, but to be true to the integrity of my own position. I would expect no less from anybody who does not share my views or who deeply differs from those views.
	If hon. Members get a chance during the limited time that we have on the Bill to make the point that their allegiance to the Crown depends on its religious attachment in future, will they also consider whether it is reasonable to expect a pledge of allegiance to the Crown to be imposed on the rest us who either do not share that religious pre-condition or who simply do not share the constitutional outlook which I know is cherished by so many in the House, but is just not part of my make-up as a constitutional Irish nationalist?

John Redwood: One of the worst constitutional innovations of the previous Government was their decision to automatically timetable every piece of legislation they brought before this House, which I regretted and opposed at the time. When the coalition Government took office, I was very pleased with their language, because they told us that they were committed to a stronger democracy and a stronger Parliament. What better proof could there be that they not only have those beliefs, but wish to put them into action, than that they not automatically timetable every Bill brought before us?
	I rise to speak on the timetable motion because there is a feeling in the House that it is wrong and because it relates to a constitutional Bill. If there is any kind of legislation that should be hammered out and discussed in full on the Floor of the House, it is on matters relating to our constitution. We are the custodians of the constitution. That constitution either expresses the freedoms we believe in or it lets us down, depending on our point of view and the state we have reached. It would be a great day if the Deputy Prime Minister, a former lover of freedom and of an independent Parliament, rose from the Front Bench and said, “I hear what you say. We will give you the freedom to debate this at the length of your choosing.”
	Often when we have guillotines, we find that legislation is rushed through with insufficient consideration. Last night an important Bill went through with a big chunk of work left undone by the House of Commons, which means we have to leave it to the House of Lords. There is no reason for that. We could have a few more sitting days, or we could stay here a little later in the evenings. Some of us want to do the job properly and time should be made available for that.
	It is even more important to allow proper consideration on something of this magnitude. We have heard today from hon. Ladies and Gentlemen who have a range of very different views on the country they belong to, the oath they wish to swear and the allegiance they wish to
	show. We are going to the heart of what this nation is, how it expresses itself and how it represents itself at the highest level. I think that it is quite wrong to shorten debate on that. It might be that when we get to the debate we will not need much more time than the Government have allowed, but surely they can trust a free Parliament. Surely, on this issue, they can let Parliament have its way and discuss what it wishes for a reasonable length of time.
	Before the Labour Government, previous Governments always reserved the right to introduce a guillotine motion if they felt that the Opposition were behaving unreasonably and not allowing sensible progress to be made. All democratic Oppositions ultimately agree that Governments have a right to get their legislation through if it has been properly advertised and argued for in general elections. Surely, on this issue, this is the time for the Deputy Prime Minister to strengthen his reputation, make his name with a blow for freedom and allow us to speak for as long as we wish.

Chloe Smith: I am grateful to right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed to the debate and extremely respectful of the range of views—perhaps we ought to call it the coalition of views—that have been expressed this afternoon. If you will allow me, Mr Speaker, I will tackle a few of the points that have been made and attempt to keep to the point of the programme motion.
	I am honour bound to say that the Bill is not being treated as if it were terrorism legislation, as a few hon. Members, and indeed some recent items in the media, have suggested. As hon. Members will know, the usual channels in the House have reflected on the timetable and taken the pragmatic decision to allow two days for debate, rather than any less time. We think that that will provide ample time for any issues to be debated before the Bill goes the House of Lords. I note that since 2007 a number of Bills have taken a shorter amount of time for the parliamentary process, and among them is another constitutional Bill, the Sovereign Grant Act 2011, which took a shorter time in the House of Commons and in the House of Lords.
	I understand from his amendments that my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) is seeking to expand the scope of the discussion to include provisions relating to the religion of children of persons in the line of succession to the Crown who have married a—dare I say it?— person of the Roman Catholic faith. That would of course pave the way for a number of amendments on the matter that he has tabled for consideration in Committee. Although I agree that we should have a full debate on the Bill, and I believe that we will have that in the time the business managers have allocated, I also think that it would be unhelpful to effectively disregard the scope of the Bill and add additional areas for debate. We need to focus on the pertinent issues and those that are in the Bill. Having said that, I will attempt to deal with a few of the substantive issues that have been raised.

Mark Reckless: The Minister refers to the usual channels and business managers, but the fact is that there seems to be widespread concern across the House, and not expressed through the usual channels, about the timetable motion as drafted. We also
	set out in the coalition agreement that the matter would be decided by a House business committee, which is yet to be established. Would this not be an opportune moment to at least reconsider the programme motion in the light of what has been expressed by many Members across the House?

Chloe Smith: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his suggestion. I note his concern, and indeed the range of views that have been expressed this afternoon. I dispute that we have heard only one side of the debate this afternoon; I think that we have heard a range of views on the programme motion.

Ian Paisley Jnr: I thank the Minister for giving way, and indeed for the very sincere way in which she has handled the meetings that have taken place outside the Chamber. Does she agree that she is opening a royal Pandora’s box of unintended consequences that will have a significant impact across the kingdom? If she satisfies me today by saying, “The Bill does not change the rule that the monarch must not be a Roman Catholic”, unfortunately she will dissatisfy other colleagues in the House. I think that those matters have massive consequences. I ask her to address that point in her comments on the timetable and the lack of consultation that appears to have taken place?

Chloe Smith: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for those further points. He seeks to draw me on one of the amendments he has tabled. In brief, I assure him that my view, and that of the Government, is that there is no need for his amendment because those parts of the legislation to which it relates still stand. That leads me to an extremely important point: the Bill, as it stands, has an extremely narrow scope. Therefore, in the view of the usual channels and the Government, it is receiving the correct amount of parliamentary time for debate.

Paul Flynn: There is universal approval in the House for the ending of gender discrimination, but does the Minister not agree that the Bill, rather than getting rid of a religious discrimination, actually reinforces it by excluding people from other religions—evangelical Christians, Catholics, Jews and Muslims—from the possibility of ever becoming Head of State?

Chloe Smith: One of the curious aspects of the debate is that we could take almost as long to discuss what is already wrong with the status quo, which is what the hon. Gentleman would like us to do.
	I must deal with a number of points that have been made across the Chamber today. I welcome the support of the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) for removing the male bias in primogeniture, and I think that other Members of the House fully support our view on that.
	As a Conservative, I do not talk here for political correctness; I talk here for religious equality and freedom. I think it is important that the Bill will end a long-standing piece of unique discrimination. The current provisions are uniquely anti-Catholic because they bar the heir from marrying a papist or a member of the Roman Catholic faith—whatever term one wishes to use—but I think that much of that terminology is the product of a different age, when the kingdom was threatened by
	expansionist Catholic realms elsewhere. However, those provisions do not apply to anybody else. They do not apply to atheists, Muslims, Jews, people of no religion or any combination of religions. I believe in the freedom that the Bill will open up by removing that unique piece of discrimination. The changes also do not affect in any way the place of the established Church of England.

Gerald Howarth: Forgive me, but my hon. Friend cannot say that the issue does not affect the established Church of England and that the Bill ends discrimination; it is discriminatory by definition that the Church of England should be the established Church in these islands. What my—

Mr Speaker: Order. I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I am sure that it is inadvertent and a consequence of the interest in the subject, but interventions are now eliding into the subject matter of the Second Reading debate. The matter with which we are concerned now is purely the allocation of time motion. The Minister is offering her view in response to the contributions to that debate. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be patient and volunteer his further thoughts ere long.

Chloe Smith: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I certainly look forward to far more debate on those matters on Second Reading.
	It does not need me to stand here and say that the changes do not affect the established Church because the established Church says that for itself. The Church of England has said:
	“The present prohibition…is not necessary to support the requirement that the Sovereign join in communion with the Church of England. Its proposed removal is a welcome symbolic and practical measure consistent with respect for the principle of religious liberty.”
	I know that the House will find that welcome.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I think the Church may have missed the fact that Counsellors of State could be Catholic because they tend to have married into the Crown.

Chloe Smith: I am grateful for that further erudite contribution from my hon. Friend. I suspect that might be a matter in respect of which he would wish to extend the scope of the Bill, and I shall have to return to that point.

John Hemming: Does the Minister not agree that this is a unique Bill in that it is being sent around to the nations of the Commonwealth?

Lindsay Hoyle: It is not actually a Bill yet; we are discussing only the allocation of time. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman’s point will be relevant.

John Hemming: In terms of the allocation of time, the Bill is being issued around the Commonwealth and it therefore needs extra time so that the House of Commons can do its job and make sure that it is not a value burger of a Bill that has not been properly DNA tested.

Chloe Smith: On that note, I had best return to questions of process, as is absolutely right at this stage of the afternoon’s work.
	It is important to bring out in this debate the fact that the Church of England also said:
	“This Government and the previous Government have consulted closely with senior Church of England figures throughout the long process which has led up to the introduction of this Bill.”
	The Bishop of Blackburn has said that the reforms
	“of the rules of royal succession are sensible and timely.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 May 2012; Vol. 737, c. 168.]
	I wish to raise those points because they draw us right back to the notion that we now have an opportunity to make the change for modern times. The process that has allowed us to do that, with consultation, is backing us. The royal household, the Church of England and the Catholic Church have all been kept informed at every stage. As right hon. and hon. Members know, the scope of the Bill has been tightly drawn to give effect to the specific goals agreed by the Commonwealth Heads of Government.
	I invite my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset to withdraw his amendment and I commend the allocation of time motion to the House.

Lindsay Hoyle: I shall now put the question on the amendment.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I was going to ask whether, by leave of the House, I might withdraw the amendment. I have listened carefully to the debate. I am sorry to say that whenever Front Benchers on both sides agree one is likely to lose in a Division, although it usually indicates that the House is going to vote erroneously; there is nothing more dangerous than when Front Benchers on both sides agree.
	I apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker, because had we come to my second amendment, you would have been able to put the question, “2(b) or not 2(b)?” Sadly, if I am granted leave to withdraw, you will not be able to put it. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That the following provisions shall apply to the proceedings on the Succession to the Crown Bill—
	Timetable
	1.–(1) Proceedings on Second Reading and in Committee, any proceedings on consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall be completed in two days in accordance with the following provisions of this Order.
	(2) Proceedings on Second Reading and in Committee shall be completed at today’s sitting.
	(3) Proceedings on Second Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion four hours after the commencement of proceedings on this Motion.
	(4) Proceedings in Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion six hours after the commencement of proceedings on this Motion.
	(5) Any proceedings on consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall be completed on the second day.
	(6) Any proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the second day.
	(7) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on the second day.
	Timing of proceedings and Questions to be put
	2. When the Bill has been read a second time—
	(a) it shall, despite Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills not subject to a programme order), stand committed to a Committee of the whole House without any Question being put;
	(b) the Speaker shall leave the Chair whether or not notice of an Instruction has been given.
	3. On the conclusion of proceedings in Committee, the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.
	4. For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1, the Chairman or Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others) in the same order as they would fall to be put if this Order did not apply— (a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
	(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;
	(c) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;
	(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded.
	5. On a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
	6. If two or more Questions would fall to be put under paragraph 4(c) on successive amendments moved or Motions made by a Minister of the Crown, the Chairman or Speaker shall instead put a single Question in relation to those amendments or Motions.
	7. If two or more Questions would fall to be put under paragraph 4(d) in relation to successive provisions of the Bill, the Chairman shall instead put a single Question in relation to those provisions, except that the Question shall be put separately on any Clause of or Schedule to the Bill which a Minister of the Crown has signified an intention to leave out.
	Consideration of Lords Amendments
	8.–(1) Any Lords Amendments to the Bill may be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly.
	(2) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall be brought to a conclusion (so far as not previously concluded) one hour after their commencement; and any proceedings suspended under sub-paragraph (1) shall thereupon be resumed.
	9.–(1) This paragraph applies for the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 8.
	(2) The Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question already proposed from the Chair.
	(3) If that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment the Speaker shall then put forthwith—
	(a) a single Question on any further Amendments to the Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown, and
	(b) the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown that this House agrees or disagrees to the Lords Amendment or (as the case may be) to the Lords Amendment as amended.
	(4) The Speaker shall then put forthwith—
	(a) a single Question on any Amendments moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment, and
	(b) the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown that this House agrees or disagrees to the Lords Amendment or (as the case may be) to the Lords Amendment as amended.
	(5) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown that this House disagrees to a Lords Amendment.
	(6) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question that this House agrees to all the remaining Lords Amendments.
	(7) As soon as the House has—
	(a) agreed or disagreed to a Lords Amendment; or
	(b) disposed of an Amendment relevant to a Lords Amendment which has been disagreed to, the Speaker shall put forthwith a single Question on any Amendments that are moved by a Minister of the Crown and are relevant to the Lords Amendment.
	Subsequent stages
	10.–(1) Any further Message from the Lords on the Bill may be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly.
	(2) Proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement; and any proceedings suspended under sub-paragraph (1) shall thereupon be resumed.
	11.–(1) This paragraph applies for the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 10.
	(2) The Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has been proposed from the Chair.
	(3) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair.
	(4) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on or relevant to any of the remaining items in the Lords Message.
	(5) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question that this House agrees with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.
	Reasons Committee
	12.–(1) The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the appointment, nomination and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the appointment of its Chair.
	(2) A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which it is appointed.
	(3) Proceedings in the Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion 30 minutes after their commencement.
	(4) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with sub-paragraph (3), the Chair shall—
	(a) first put forthwith any Question which has been proposed from the Chair, and
	(b) then put forthwith successively Questions on motions which may be made by a Minister of the Crown for assigning a Reason for disagreeing with the Lords in any of their Amendments.
	(5) The proceedings of the Committee shall be reported without any further Question being put.
	Miscellaneous
	13. Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business) shall apply so far as necessary for the purposes of this Order.
	14.–(1) The proceedings on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.
	(2) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business) shall apply to those proceedings.
	15. Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply in relation to any proceedings to which this Order applies.
	16.–(1) No Motion shall be made, except by a Minister of the Crown, to alter the order in which any proceedings on the Bill are taken or to recommit the Bill.
	(2) The Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
	17.–(1) No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to proceedings to which this Order applies except by a Minister of the Crown.
	(2) The Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
	18. The Speaker may not arrange for a debate to be held in accordance with Standing Order No. 24 (Emergency debates) on a day on which the Bill has been set down to be taken as an Order of the Day before the conclusion of any proceedings to which this Order applies.
	19.–(1) This paragraph applies if the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the conclusion of any proceedings to which this Order applies.
	(2) No notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.
	20. Proceedings to which this Order applies shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
	21.–(1) Any private business which has been set down for consideration at 7.00 pm, 4.00 pm or 2.00 pm (as the case may be) on a day on which the Bill has been set down to be taken as an Order of the Day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day.
	(2) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or, if those proceedings are concluded before the moment of interruption, for a period equal to the time elapsing between 7.00 pm, 4.00 pm or 2.00 pm (as the case may be) and the conclusion of those proceedings.

Succession to the Crown Bill

Second Reading

Nicholas Clegg: I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Bill, has consented to place her prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
	I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	The Bill does three specific things. First, it ends the system of male-preference primogeniture so that, in the royal succession, older sisters will no longer be overtaken by their younger brothers. Secondly, it removes the law that says that anyone who marries a Roman Catholic automatically loses their place in the line, a legal barrier that applies to Catholics and only Catholics—no other faith. Thirdly, it replaces the Royal Marriages Act 1772.
	Under the 1772 Act, any descendent of George II must seek the reigning monarch’s consent before marrying, without which their marriage is void. That law, passed 240 years ago, is clearly now unworkable. George II’s descendants number in their hundreds. Many will be unaware of that arcane requirement and many will have only a tenuous link to the royal family.
	The Bill proposes that the monarch need consent only to the marriages of the first six individuals in the line of succession, without which consent they would lose their place.

Angus MacNeil: I have heard what the Deputy Prime Minister has said about the previous situation, but surely the requirement of the monarch’s permission for those first six individuals is arcane in this day and age.

Nicholas Clegg: It is not arcane; it is a pragmatic judgment. The Bill retains the requirement for permission from the monarch for those wishing to marry who are in the immediate line of succession. It seeks to confine what had become a sprawling requirement to a much more limited and pragmatic one.

Chris Bryant: I simply do not understand why the monarch would want to retain the right to forbid somebody to marry and to declare their marriage null and void because consent was not granted. On what basis would they refuse to grant consent—because someone involved was illegitimate, not wealthy enough, a commoner or an actress? Those are reasons that have previously been used for not consenting.

Nicholas Clegg: That, of course, is a matter for the monarch. It is a power of the monarch’s that has not been brought into that much dispute for a prolonged period. We had a choice: we could either remove it altogether or trim it radically to the six individuals in the immediate line of succession.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Will the Deputy Prime Minister give way?

Nicholas Clegg: I would like to make progress, but of course I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I wonder whether the Deputy Prime Minister is aware that the six people are being brought back into the provisions of the Royal Marriages Act. The exemption in the Act states:
	“other than the issue of princesses who have married, or may hereafter marry, into foreign families”.
	The marriage of Louisa, daughter of George II, from whom Princess Alexandra was directly descended, excludes the Prince of Wales, all his children and all their future children from the provisions of the Royal Marriages Act. Bringing the six people in will, in a novel way, include them in the provisions of an outdated Act.

Nicholas Clegg: As a proficient historian, the hon. Gentleman will know that the original Act was passed because of George III’s urgent wish to control the marriage of some of his own children. That set a precedent which has remained on the statute book for a long period. We are retaining the right of the monarch to confer that permission, but only to those in the immediate line of succession; the hon. Gentleman is right to say that this is different to what preceded it. Having been in consultation with the royal household over a prolonged period, we feel that that strikes the right balance.

Paul Flynn: Will the Deputy Prime Minister give way?

Nicholas Clegg: I would like to make some progress, but okay.

Paul Flynn: Presumably, the Deputy Prime Minister, as a Member of this House who is 246th in the line of succession to the throne, was previously covered by this provision; I will check with him as to whether he asked permission to marry. We heard recently that certain Bills have been blocked in this House, including Tam Dalyell’s 1999 Bill about giving the House, rather than the monarchy, the decision on whether to declare war. We have been told that the monarchy, under instructions from Prime Ministers, has acted to make such changes. Was the royal family involved in producing the figure of six?

Nicholas Clegg: As I said, I accept that there is a certain arbitrariness about the figure of six; it could be seven or five. The principle to limit the powers of the monarch to grant permission to marry to those who are in the immediate line of succession seemed to us to be the right balance to strike, but I accept that perfectly valid arguments of principle could be made otherwise. It is, however, a very dramatic change—pragmatic, but dramatic none the less—from the precedent that has been set from the days of George III.

Chris Bryant: rose—

Nicholas Clegg: I really want to make progress now.
	The reform that limits permission to the six who are in line to the throne is made for practical reasons; the other two reforms are more about our values. The
	current rules of succession belong to a bygone era; they reflect old prejudices and old fears. Today we do not support laws which discriminate on either religious or gender grounds. They have no place in modern Britain, and certainly not in our monarchy—an institution central to our constitution, to the Commonwealth, and to our national identity too. With the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge expecting a baby and our having just celebrated our Queen’s 60-year reign, this Bill is timely as well as popular. It is also straightforward and enjoys support across the House, which, as I should know, is a rare thing in constitutional reform issues.
	I will come to the Catholic provisions in a few moments, because I am aware that, as we have already heard, some hon. Members have concerns about their implications. On female succession, the real question that we need to ask is why it has taken us so long. This is a nation that prides itself on pioneering equality between the sexes: a nation of great Queens such as Queen Victoria and Elizabeth II. A woman can, and has, been Head of the UK Government, yet still on our statute books, with Parliament’s official backing, we have succession laws based on the supposed superiority of men. That anachronism is out of step with our society, it sends the wrong message to the rest of the world, and it is time for the rules to change.

Ben Wallace: As the Member of Parliament for Wyre and Preston North, I represent huge tracts of Duchy of Lancaster land. Henry IV set up the Lancastrian inheritance separately from the Crown and its entities to follow through the male heirs, except where the monarch was a female. Under that separate arrangement for passing on the private possessions of the Duke of Lancaster, inheritance currently remains with the male heir where a male is a child of a monarch. Therefore, if the Queen were to have both a boy and a girl, would we not be in danger of splitting an inheritance so that the changes ensured that the female inherited the position of monarch but the title of Duke of Lancaster went to the son?

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Before the Deputy Prime Minister answers, may I say that we need shorter interventions? I hope that that can be taken on board.

Nicholas Clegg: As my hon. Friend knows, this Bill deals only with the succession to the throne and not with issues relating to the succession of hereditary titles. We can have a perfectly valid separate argument about that, but it is not within the very narrow scope of this Bill, all the reasons for which have been explained by the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Miss Smith).

Ben Wallace: I am not sure that my right hon. Friend understands. This measure, without such clarity, will disinherit the monarch of the lands that the monarch holds in the title of Duke of Lancaster, given that that is a separate division from the Crown.

Nicholas Clegg: Let me make it clear that this is about the succession to the Crown and nothing else. The issues of succession to hereditary titles can be dealt with separately if this House so wishes.

Andrew Turner: rose—

Jacob Rees-Mogg: rose—

Nicholas Clegg: I have taken many interventions and will continue to do so, but I would like to make a little progress.
	The Bill builds on the endeavours of the previous Government, who helped to lay the foundations for reform with the Commonwealth realms—

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Will the Deputy Prime Minister give way?

Nicholas Clegg: I really would like to make progress on this point. [Hon. Members: “Give way!] I give way.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: This is crucial, because what the Deputy Prime Minister says now could be taken in the law courts as giving interpretation to the law. Has he said that under the provisions of this Bill the Duchy of Lancaster would be separated from the Crown for the first time since the reign of Henry IV?

Nicholas Clegg: No, I did not say that. I said that this Bill deals only with succession to the Crown and that succession to all other titles can be dealt with separately. For clarity’s purpose, my hon. Friend will remember that the Sovereign Grant Act—

Andrew Turner: Will the Deputy Prime Minister give way?

Nicholas Clegg: May I answer the question? The Sovereign Grant Act 2010 makes a very important change that touches on the succession to the Crown as far as the Duchy of Cornwall is concerned. As the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) may know, the convention is that the male heir to the throne has the title of Duchy of Cornwall conferred on him, but a female heir to the throne does not. The Bill does not change that situation, but the provisions of the Sovereign Grant Act mean that the financial support provided via the Duchy of Cornwall can, in future, be provided to female heirs to the throne as well. To that extent, there is a link between this very tightly circumscribed Bill and the provisions of the Sovereign Grant Act.
	The drafting of the Bill has been a long and careful process. I pay special tribute to Rebecca Kitteridge, New Zealand’s Cabinet Secretary, for her extraordinary work in making sure that these proposals can be effected across the Commonwealth realms. Agreeing constitutional change for 16 states, each with its own Government and legislature, is clearly a challenge. From the point at which the realms backed the reforms in principle in 2011, it took one year and two months to get full agreement in writing from everyone. In a phenomenal coincidence—one that I know is hard to believe—we received the final consent just hours before the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge announced that they are expecting a baby.

Gerald Howarth: rose—

Nicholas Clegg: I will make a little more progress and then give way.
	The palace has, of course, been actively involved in the process from the beginning, and both the Church of England and the Catholic Church have been kept informed throughout.

Tony Baldry: Will my right hon. Friend give way on that point?

Nicholas Clegg: Yes.

Tony Baldry: I am very grateful. There have been misinformed suggestions in some newspapers that the Church of England is in some way opposed to this Bill. May I make it clear and put it on the record that the Church of England has absolutely no objection to it whatsoever?

Nicholas Clegg: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for putting that on the record. Later in my remarks I will repeat verbatim the form that that support from the Church of England took.

Gerald Howarth: On the Commonwealth, the Deputy Prime Minister said that the 16 realms had given their approval just prior to the announcement of the royal pregnancy. However, that approval was still subject, was it not, to parliamentary endorsement in each of those countries? Therefore, will the Bill come into effect only once the relevant legislation has been enacted in all those countries? If so, when does he expect that that might happen?

Nicholas Clegg: My understanding is that it needs to come into force in all the realms. Interestingly, two of the realms, Jamaica and Papua New Guinea, do not, for their own reasons, need to go through the full legislative process. That is partly why we are so keen to keep the precision of the terms of the Bill and the narrowness of its scope, such that it can be easily adopted and digested under all the different parliamentary and legislative conventions that exist in the 16 Commonwealth realms. We now have a very short Bill of five clauses and a schedule. I urge the House to bear it in mind that, as I have explained, the Bill must be kept narrow in order to be adopted across all 16 Commonwealth realms.
	I have heard it suggested that we should use the Bill to tackle the gender bias in hereditary titles whereby titles and the benefits that come with them leapfrog eldest daughters and are handed down to younger sons, or can be lost entirely when there is no male heir. Personally, I am sympathetic to that reform and can see why this seems like the natural time to do it, but, for purely practical reasons, it cannot and will not be done in this Bill. Nor can we can use the Bill to mop up any other constitutional odds and ends. Put simply, it cannot be broadened to include UK-specific reforms, because they are not relevant to the realms of the Commonwealth.
	Turning to the all-important so-called Catholic question, the coalition Government are seeking to remove the current ban on heirs to the throne marrying Catholics; or, as the current legislation says, rather insultingly, depending on one’s point of view, from “marrying a Papist”. That law is a reflection of the times in which it was written. It followed nearly two centuries of religious strife within England, Scotland and Ireland; the threat
	of conflict with Louis XIV’s France and other Catholic powers; and tension with Rome. It was an era when legal defences seemed vital against a dangerous threat from abroad.
	That does not just apply to the royal accession—in the 40 years after the Glorious Revolution a whole range of restrictions were put in place. Catholics could not vote, they were excluded from all professions and public offices and they could not go to university, could not teach, could not be the guardian of a child, could not buy land with a lease of more than 31 years and could not own a horse worth more than £5. Edmund Burke called the laws
	“well fitted for the oppression, impoverishment and degradation of a people…as ever proceeded from the perverted ingenuity of man.”
	Many of the laws were repealed relatively quickly. The ban on owning land was repealed in 1778 and that on voting and serving in the legal profession in 1793. By the time the ban on Catholics from serving in this House as MPs and from serving as judges was lifted in 1829, most of the main restrictions were gone.

Ian Paisley Jnr: Do not worry, I am not going to say, “Ah, those halcyon days.” If, as the Deputy Prime Minister’s colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary has rightly said, the Bill will not rule that the monarch must not be a Roman Catholic, would it not for the sake of clarity be beneficial to include that in the Bill?

Nicholas Clegg: Our judgment is that that is not necessary and that the Bill’s intent is entirely clear.
	To bring us right up to date—given that the hon. Gentleman referred to yesteryear—it was only in November 1995 that Her Majesty the Queen visited Westminster Cathedral, which was the first time a reigning monarch had set foot inside a Catholic church since Queen Mary. That was a watershed moment in relations between the British state and its millions of loyal, patriotic Catholic citizens. Now it falls to us to take a step further in this journey by ridding ourselves of the arcane ban on Catholics marrying the monarch, and this Bill does exactly that.
	I know that some hon. Members have concerns—we have heard them today—about potential unintended consequences of the reform. One concern, for example, is that if a monarch married a Catholic their heir would have to be brought up in the Catholic faith, and that, on becoming King or Queen, they would then assume their role as supreme governor of the Church of England, which would, in turn, lead to the disestablishment of the state Church. If we followed that logic, however, we should be introducing bans on marriage to members of every other faith and, indeed, people with no faith. Right now the monarch can marry a Muslim, a Jew, a Hindu or an atheist, yet no one is alleging today that we are teetering on the edge of a constitutional crisis.
	The Catholic Church does not have any blanket rule dictating that all children in mixed marriages must be brought up as Catholics. Indeed, if we look at the current royal family, we see that Prince Michael of Kent is an Anglican, his wife a Catholic and their heirs, Lord Frederick and Lady Gabriella Windsor, are Anglican and retain their places in line to the throne.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I refer the Deputy Prime Minister to canon 1125 of the Catholic Church, which states clearly that a party to a mixed marriage must make his or her best efforts to bring up the children in the Catholic faith. Of course, some Catholics fail, but that does not mean that there is not a rule of the Catholic Church—there is.

Nicholas Clegg: If I understand it correctly, the precise wording—the hon. Gentleman may be able to correct me—is “best endeavours”. Equally, however, the Catholic Church has been clear that Bishops are free to decide, which they do on an ongoing basis, to allow a married couple—one a Catholic and the other of another faith—to bring up their children in a faith other than the Catholic faith.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The Deputy Prime Minister is absolutely right. Canon 1124 allows for the Bishop to give permission for a mixed marriage, subject to canon 1125, which is the requirement for best efforts to be made to bring the children up as Catholic. Of course, it is open to the Government to ask the papacy, via the Papal Nuncio, for a papal indult to get around that for royal marriages. I wonder whether that has been done.

Nicholas Clegg: It might be worth reading out the words of the Archbishop of Westminster, who said when it was announced that we would proceed with this Bill:
	“I welcome the decision of Her Majesty's Government to give heirs to the throne the freedom to marry a Catholic”.
	He also said, crucially, that
	“I fully recognise the importance of the position of the Established Church in protecting and fostering the role of faith in our society today.”
	I do not think that anyone has sought, in any such pronouncements, to highlight the risks that the hon. Gentleman has highlighted today.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Nicholas Clegg: I want to make progress and quote a statement by the Church of England itself, in a briefing issued to MPs last week. It said:
	“The present prohibition on anyone remaining in the line of succession or succeeding to the Crown as a result of marrying a Roman Catholic is not necessary to support the requirement that the Sovereign join in communion with the Church of England. Its proposed removal is a welcome symbolic and practical measure consistent with respect for the principle of religious liberty. It reflects the sea change in ecumenical relations over recent decades.”
	I have, therefore, quoted statements from both the Catholic Church and the Church of England and I hope they will provide ample comfort to those who are concerned.

Alan Beith: I support the position that my right hon. Friend is taking and I am worried by the argument of the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) that, somehow, the United Kingdom Government and the monarchy would have to ask the permission of the papacy, which would, in itself, be a deprivation of religious freedom. These are difficult decisions, but what my right hon. Friend is doing is surely not putting us in that situation.

Nicholas Clegg: I want to be clear that there is absolutely no prospect of our entering into discussions with the Vatican in order to bring this Bill into effect.

Eleanor Laing: Is it not reasonable to assume, as my right hon. Friend and his colleagues in Government appear to have assumed in the way in which they have drafted the Bill, that on attaining adulthood, an heir to the throne, regardless of the religious affiliation of his or her mother or father, could put his or her duty as the future monarch of our country ahead of any religious faith and decide for him or herself to take a position that would be constitutionally acceptable and protect the monarchy?

Nicholas Clegg: That is a practical and perfectly reasonable assumption to make. I would highlight the fact, however, that under the current provisions, even if we did not proceed with the Bill, an heir to the throne could marry someone of the Hindu faith and yet decide, not least because they would be acutely aware of their place and duty in the line of succession to the throne, that their children, if they have any, were to be brought up in the Anglican faith. That is an assumption that acts as a bedrock underneath the status quo. We are only extrapolating that by adding the Catholic faith to all the other faiths that can be involved in a marriage to heirs to the throne.

Chris Bryant: I am grateful to the Deputy Prime Minister for giving way—he is being very generous. Does he believe that the monarch would legally be able to refuse consent to a marriage merely on the basis of somebody marrying a Roman Catholic? There is no provision that says what the monarch must bear in mind and, indeed, the old legislation, which we are repealing, makes it clear that it is the monarch with the Privy Council who makes the decision, whereas in this Bill it is just the monarch on their own.

Nicholas Clegg: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that we are not seeking to specify in legislation the terms in which the monarch provides that consent. We are certainly not specifying that that should be done according to the faith of the person who is marrying an heir to the throne.
	In matters of constitutional significance, we should of course always proceed with care. Yes, we must always think through the potential knock-on effects of reform, but we also need to move with the times. Discrimination is discrimination wherever we find it, and just as we respect our traditions and cherish our monarchy, the House must never tolerate prejudice in our laws. Equality is, after all, a great British tradition too. I commend the Bill to the House.

Wayne David: The Opposition strongly support the Bill. The Labour Government, under the premiership of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), began the work on the changes that we see in it. I am pleased to say that our manifesto for the 2010 general election stated:
	“Our constitutional monarchy is the source of deep pride and strength for our country…there is a case”—
	I believe it to be a strong case—
	“for reform of the laws concerning marriage to Roman Catholics and the primacy of male members of the Royal family.”
	Those two points are at the heart of the Bill. As the Deputy Prime Minister explained, marrying a Roman Catholic will no longer prevent a person from becoming or remaining monarch, and the Bill will end discrimination in determining succession so that a younger son cannot have precedence over an elder daughter in the line of succession to the throne.
	With regard to the first issue, it is surely right that the current exclusion of individuals who marry Catholics be brought to an end, especially as no other discrimination of that kind is on the statute book. The prohibition dates back to the Glorious Revolution, the 1688-89 Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement 1700. Whatever the contemporary justification for those measures, in this day and age there can be no justification for maintaining the restriction on the religion of the spouse of a person in the line of succession. Such an anachronism is an injustice and ought to have no place in a modern country with a constitutional monarchy.
	We are equally committed to ending the male primogeniture rule. It cannot be justified that individuals are discriminated against because of their gender, and that basic principle of equality is firmly established in most recent legislation. Modifying the succession rule will bring the British monarchy into a position similar to that of most other European monarchies—I hope that Members will consider that to be an argument in favour of the change. Hon. Members will note that gender equality in succession laws was achieved in Sweden in 1980, the Netherlands in 1983 and Norway and Belgium in the early 1990s. It was introduced in Denmark in 2006 and is anticipated before too long in Spain. The change is in tune with enlightened attitudes in many other European countries as well as here in the United Kingdom.
	As we know, there have been many calls for gender equality in the royal succession over the years. Noble Lords and hon. Members have presented numerous Bills on the subject, and I refer in particular to those tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) in 2011, and before him by a previous Member for Battersea, now Lord Dubs. The latter Bill went further than the former, but many of the sentiments in those private Members’ Bills have now found voice in this Bill. I add that there has been extensive and positive consultation on it with the Opposition as well as with interested parties.

Angus MacNeil: In light of the hon. Gentleman’s words, perhaps he could tell us why, in 2004, when an attempt was made in the Lords to reform the succession, the Labour Government did all in their power to block it.

Wayne David: That is an interesting point, and I am sure there was a very good reason, but I do not think it is germane to our discussion today.
	There has been extensive consultation on the Bill, and I note the consent of the Queen, as expressed by the Deputy Prime Minister at the start of the debate.
	There is a third measure in the Bill that needs to be commented on. Although the Prime Minister did not refer to it in his statement to the Commonwealth Heads
	of Government meeting in Perth on 28 October 2011, it was referred to in his invitation to the Heads of Government of the Commonwealth, and the Government have recognised the need for the change. I refer to the requirement for all the descendants of George II to seek permission from the monarch to marry. In place of that, the Bill proposes a more limited requirement for the monarch to agree to the marriages of a specific number of individuals in the line of succession. That is surely a sensible proposal.

Paul Flynn: Does my hon. Friend really regard it as a sensible proposal? What percentage of our constituents does he think would accept an absolute prohibition from a relative on marrying the person of their choice?

Wayne David: We are talking about the monarch of the United Kingdom, not everybody else in the country. We have to acknowledge that we have a constitutional monarchy that is quite unique.
	The origins of the current stipulation are in ancient common law, whereby the monarch has a duty and right of care relating to the upbringing of his or her close relatives. However, that was taken significantly further by the Royal Marriages Act 1772. Although that statute was promoted by George III’s antagonism towards the marriage of his two brothers to women whom he saw as unacceptable, it was drafted in such a way that it went much further than was necessary to respond to his immediate concerns. Indeed, the ramifications of that law mean that today literally hundreds of individuals are obliged to go through a formal legal process involving the monarch and the Privy Council to have their marriages approved. The Bill introduces a change so that any future prohibitions are of eligibility to the line of succession rather than of the marriage.
	I do not question the proposed change, but I would nevertheless welcome clarification from the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Norwich North (Miss Smith), of why royal consent is now to be required for the first six people in line to the throne. I heard the Deputy Prime Minister say that it is a pragmatic move, but there has to be some rationale behind it. The constitutional expert Vernon Bogdanor has suggested that the figure might be five, and others have suggested larger or smaller numbers. Perhaps the Minister could clarify why six has been the number chosen.

Chris Bryant: What does my hon. Friend think would happen to somebody who was No. 7 in line and then suddenly became No. 6?

Wayne David: That is an interesting hypothetical question, and I would certainly welcome the Minister’s response, as it is the Government who have put forward the figure of six.

Eleanor Laing: Is it not the case that if somebody is in close proximity to the throne but wishes to contract a marriage with a member of the Catholic faith, or in future wishes to contract a marriage of which the monarch would not approve, they have every freedom to renounce their entitlement to the throne and remove themselves from the list of the six people in question?

Wayne David: I suppose it would be up to the individual to decide to do that, but we are talking not about the actions of an individual in certain circumstances but about what the law requires them to do.
	I referred to the Commonwealth. We are pleased that the Government have received final agreement in writing from the other 15 Commonwealth realms. The agreement relates to the three elements of the Bill. We understand that to all intents and purposes, Parliament cannot change the Bill substantially, because if there were to be significant amendment the new text would have to be agreed by each Commonwealth realm. That would inevitably cause significant delay.
	We are pleased that the Government have consulted the Opposition, and I thank the Minister for her courtesy. We have therefore agreed to the Government’s wish to expedite the legislative process. However, they have wisely recognised the mood of the House as expressed at the last Deputy Prime Minister’s questions and granted two days for the consideration of the Bill rather than one.

Ian Paisley Jnr: Is the hon. Gentleman asking the House to believe that faith and religion are now to become completely and totally disposable when it becomes convenient? If a future heir to the throne is raised in a faith different from that of Anglican, when it comes to the choice of retaining something that they believe in their heart, or having the prize of the throne, they could dispose of their faith. That is essentially what we are asking the nation to believe: in secularism, to a degree—that one’s faith no longer really matters.

Wayne David: With all due respect, I do not think that is the case. The Bill strikes a balance between modernity, which we accept we need to acknowledge, and recognising that the Church of England is central to the life of this country and its monarchy. I think a good balance has been struck and I am sure that some of the suggested unintended consequences of the Bill will be considered during our deliberations.

Paul Flynn: When my hon. Friend says “this country”, I presume he means England. As he knows, in the country where he and I live, the Church has been disestablished for 90 years, and happily so.

Wayne David: Disestablishment is, of course, a reality as both my hon. Friend and I readily acknowledge. We must recognise that the monarch has a different relationship with the Church of England and the Church in Wales, and my hon. Friend is right to point out that distinction.
	I mentioned unintended consequences. Hon. Members have referred to the Duchy of Cornwall, but it seems to me that the letters patent would need to be altered if the duchy were to be automatically transferred to a female heir to the throne. Otherwise, it has been suggested that the heir apparent could be deprived of the source of revenue necessary to fulfil her responsibilities. I suspect that one or two hon. Members might welcome that, but many more would be concerned. I heard what the Deputy Prime Minister said, but I refer him to the deliberations of the Lords Constitution Committee which referred to that as a specific concern.

Dan Rogerson: I did not intervene on my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on this issue so I will do so now. There are two possible options for the Duchy of Cornwall. One is that it is held by the Crown but does not entirely revert to it, and the revenue is passed on to a female heir. The second is that, as the hon. Gentleman is suggesting, we somehow amend the original charters that established the duchy to allow the heir to hold it in their own right. That would, I think, be a more satisfactory solution given the other constitutional responsibilities of the Duke of Cornwall with regard to the constituency I represent.

Wayne David: I suspect that the hon. Gentleman is correct, but if we are to have a package that is watertight and constitutionally thought through, consequences of that type should be addressed as a matter of importance.
	A number of Members have referred to the important issue of the relationship between Church and state. According to the Bill, the heir to the throne would now be able to marry a Roman Catholic. It has been suggested that that has implications for the religious upbringing of a royal heir, which might prevent them from being in communion with the Church of England, and then from acceding to the throne. I have been reassured, however, as has the Deputy Prime Minister, that both the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of England have expressed confidence in the process that has been outlined.
	As the Deputy Prime Minister said, Mr Richard Chapman, the Church of England’s secretary for parliamentary affairs, has written to Members with reference to the removal of the prohibition on the heir from marrying a Catholic, and it is worth quoting him again because it is of enormous significance. He said it is
	“a welcome symbolic and practical measure, consistent with respect for the principle of religious liberty. It reflects the sea change in ecumenical relations over recent decades.”
	That is extremely important and I hope it will reassure those Members who have expressed concerns.

Andrew Turner: It seems to me that we are in danger of considering the issues that have to be covered, such as those relating to the Duchy of Cornwall, after legislating rather than before. That is the problem. We are hoping that things will be done properly but we cannot guarantee that.

Wayne David: Of course we cannot guarantee it, but I have faith in the democratic process and the co-operation that exists across the House, and that these serious issues will be addressed properly. It is important that such matters are considered sensibly here as well as in the other place. I am sure that discussions will take place, and I hope that progress will be indicated before the Bill finishes its parliamentary passage.
	Let me refer to an issue that is, in some ways, particular to the people of Wales: the title of Princess of Wales. Since 1301 the eldest male heir has usually been invested with the title of Prince of Wales, and as I understand, that position is bestowed at the discretion of the monarch. Edward II did not invest his eldest son, the future Edward III, with the title, but investiture later became custom and practice. The position confers no automatic rights or responsibilities, but it follows that if there is to
	be no gender discrimination in the royal succession, consideration ought to be given to the title of Princess of Wales being given to a female heir apparent.

Paul Flynn: My hon. Friend is being extremely generous in giving way. He will recall from history that the title of Prince of Wales was the result of a promise that the people of Wales would have a King who could not speak a word of English. He could not speak a word of any language, including a word of Welsh. Is it sensible, with the pride of Wales at heart, to continue to perpetuate that royal confidence trick?

Wayne David: My reading of history is that when Llywelyn was defeated by Edward I, a promise was indeed made. The King of England at that time could not, of course, speak Welsh, but he could not speak English either. He spoke Norman French. It is important to make that point when considering such issues because it is easy for some people to translate modern ideas of nationality into mediaeval situations. It is important that the historical reality of the United Kingdom is recognised, and there is a specific niche for Wales with regard to the Prince of Wales, and hopefully, in future, for the Princess of Wales. If it were appropriate to have a Princess of Wales I hope that people in Wales would welcome such a development, and I ask the Minister whether she would welcome such a move.
	The Bill is small yet has significant constitutional implications. It reinforces and extends a process of modernisation for our constitutional monarchy that has been under way for some time. The people of this country are, quite rightly, very supportive of the royal family and recognise that not only is the monarchy an important part of our nation’s heritage, it is also a vital element in defining the identity of Britain in the 21st century. The changes in this Bill will help to ensure that the monarchy continues to be an essential part of Britain’s future.

Lindsay Hoyle: We are going to introduce a 10-minute limit on speeches. It would be helpful if Members do not take up all that time or we will have to introduce a further cut to the time limit.

Nicholas Soames: I rise not to arrest the regrettably heady speed of the passage of the Bill, but to join my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg)—he made a beautiful speech and would have found support in the Lobby had he pressed his amendments to a Division—and to ensure that the Government leave the House in no doubt about the effects of the Bill as they tinker away out of consideration of, we can assume, political correctness on the one hand and of the European convention on human rights on the other.
	I am afraid that the genesis of the Bill is the “good wheeze” school of government. The doctrine is much in fashion, but it does not receive nearly rigorous or formidable enough scrutiny from the House. Although the proposals were a long time in gestation, they are not easy to construe, their consequences are not clear, and they have not become in any way current in normal public understanding, which they should have done, because the Bill touches on British history and tradition but
	succumbs to the passing enthusiasms of the 21st century. Above all, the proposals interfere with statutes that have slept for more than 300 years, and a common law rule of far greater antiquity. So seriously were these matters taken at the Commonwealth Heads of Government conference that Ms Gillard was reported to have said to our Prime Minister on the day the measure was agreed, “Cheer up, Dave. It’s a great day for Sheilas everywhere.”
	Therefore, Parliament is more than usually obliged to seek from the Government a clear understanding of what is involved, because we touch today on customs and traditions that go back far beyond the great parliamentary conflicts of the 17th century and change a system that has stood this extraordinary country in great good stead down the generations. For more than 1,000 years, except for the 11 years of the Cromwellian interregnum, England has never been without a sovereign. For 1,000 years, the Crown has been the key to our nationhood and has served to implant down the generations the habit of feeling and acting together in national matters. The Crown has proved to be a most effective means for preserving and strengthening the country’s cohesion and stability. It is and always has been the unifying principle that unites the national family.
	When an English sovereign succeeds to the throne, they inherit 1,000 years of unbroken monarchical heritage. These are not, therefore, matters to be treated lightly, nor ones to be trifled with, and, not surprisingly, there has therefore been some confusion about what the Bill is and is not about. The Government, as always, but particularly when dealing with sometimes ill-thought-out constitutional matters, must be aware of the unwanted, unintended consequences that often flow from tinkering with such legislation. They could damage the crucial relationship between Church and state as well as peerage law, and possibly interfere with accepted conventions and laws reaching back down the times.
	Consequent to the Bill—this is why my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset was completely right to ask for the House to have more time to deal with the matter—a large number of Acts will require the House’s attention and amendment, including the Bill of Rights 1689; the Act of Settlement 1701; the Union with Scotland Act 1706; the Coronation Oath Act 1688; Princess Sophia’s Precedence Act 1711; the Royal Marriages Act 1772; the Union with Ireland Act 1800; the Accession Declaration Act 1910; and the Regency Act 1937. Those are not things to be consigned to the dustbin of history at the flick of a pen; they require the detailed attention of the House and respect for the part they have played in the architecture of the constitution of this country, which is the guarantee of stability in difficult times.
	Although I support the proposals both to make royal primogeniture gender blind—England, after all, has been extremely lucky with its queens—and to restrict the reach and impact of royal approval for marriage of potential heirs, I should like to ask the Government two important questions, the first of which arises from the fact that there is at least a presumption, if not an obligation, that children in mixed Catholic marriages should be brought up in the Catholic faith. Will the Government assure this House that, in removing the Catholic marriage disqualification, the Bill in no way makes it more likely that a Catholic will become eligible
	to succeed to the throne, and explain why? If, for example, a young and popular heir is brought up as a Catholic, would it not in practice, never mind the existing law, be difficult to stand in the way of their succeeding?
	Secondly, anticipating the very considerable and entirely understandable trouble that my hon. Friend the Minister and my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister will have in their lordships’ House, where their lordships will do what they do so well, can this House be assured that the proposed changes to the primogeniture rule for royal succession do not in any way pre-empt whether the same changes should apply to the separate rules for the descent of hereditary titles of honour?
	I repeat that these are not matters to be treated lightly. They are very serious and touch on the architecture of the foundation of the law and settlement in this country. I will support the Government on Second Reading, but I urge them to explain in considerable detail—in more detail—what is involved and what consequential changes to other legislation are required as a result of the Bill.

Paul Flynn: I am grateful for the opportunity to follow the voice of British conservatism. It seems extraordinary that a Member of this House should refer to the equal treatment of women as one of the House’s passing enthusiasms. That is one of the great changes that have taken place in our generation. It is a joy to see the increased number of women who sit in the House, and the wider mixture of races, colours and creeds.
	There is no need for the Bill to be rushed through. If the date were removed from the Bill, we would have years to consider it. There is no question that the royal child will be ready to take the throne for many decades. We have all that time in which to create a Bill that is reasonable, fair and sustainable for the decades to come.
	I have the great honour to represent the constituency where the last riot designed to set up a republic took place. In 1839 in the streets of Newport, a group of Chartists arranged to charge a place where they thought a Chartist prisoner was being held. They then intended to stop the post, which was to be a signal to the rest of the country that they intended to set up a republic. At the time, the country was not one to which the description given by the right hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames) could be applied, as it was a country of great deprivation, great injustice and terrible poverty.
	The Chartists were protesting against the system as it was at the time, under a monarchy. That is not to say that monarchy is necessarily a bad system, but we cannot ignore the years in which our monarchs, many of whom did not speak English, behaved as tyrants. For some years now, there has been a division between the Commons and the monarchy, symbolised in the House’s tradition of slamming the door on the monarch’s representative when he comes to the House to deliver the summons to hear her speak. This is crucial to us: it is part of our democracy and character.
	I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that the part of our history of which we in this democratic Chamber should be most proud is the story of those who worked to establish socialist reforms. What is special about our democracy and admired throughout the world is the
	fact that we have free speech, we have a welfare state, and we have a sense of fairness and fair play—but all those reforms were hard-won.

Richard Drax: The hon. Gentleman just asked what is special about our monarchy. One answer, perhaps, is that we do not tinker with it.

Paul Flynn: We are tinkering with it today. It must be a matter of some concern, but we are tinkering with it. Pandora’s box is open now, and having tinkered with one part it, we can tinker with other parts of it.

Angus MacNeil: Many Acts, including and especially the 1701 Act of Settlement, are nothing other than tinkering.

Paul Flynn: Indeed, absolutely. They were based on the prejudices of the past. To look at our history, we can go through the length of this building and see representations of royalty in portraits, coats or arms and statues—there must be at least a thousand—but where would we look to find mementos of the work of the Chartists, the Levellers or the suffragettes? There are precious few, yet they, not royalty, were the ones who contributed to the development of our democracy.

Chris Bryant: I have been wondering about this tinkering business that we heard about from the hon. Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax). Can my hon. Friend point out to that hon. Gentleman that Richard II, Edward II, Richard III, Henry VI, Edward IV and Edward VIII—at least; I have left several out, no doubt—were removed expressly by or through the intervention of Parliament. It is a long-established tradition that the succession is a matter for Parliament.

Paul Flynn: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The hon. Member for South Dorset is the victim of a romantic delusion that history does not support. We should take pride in the traditions of this House.
	What we have before us is a piece of rushed legislation, and we all know legislation introduced in haste usually turns out to be bad legislation. Take the idea that we modernise the system by retaining in it the right for a relative to determine that people should not be allowed to marry the person they love. That is not modern; it is another anachronism from the distant past, but we are retaining it and allowing the monarch to have absolute power over the love lives of six relatives. That seems extraordinary. Who put that in? Who decided that that was a good idea?
	One problem with the Bill is its narrowness, which means that we cannot discuss the interesting amendments that have been tabled, including one I mentioned briefly earlier that would allow the country a choice. We are the position, when we look to the next Head of State, of being infantilised by our own Ministers. We are told that certain letters cannot be published because if they were they would imperil the status of the next monarch. Well, if they do, we should hear about that. If there is a doubt in those letters, why on earth can we not, as the elected representatives of the people, have those letters published? Yet the Government recently decided, in spite
	of a court ruling and a freedom of information ruling, that those letters from the heir to the throne should remain absolutely secret, because if we saw them we might decide that perhaps he is not the right person to be on the throne. What can the country do?
	We are still enshrining the mediaeval idea that it is the son—now the daughter, which is a slight improvement—who will inherit, but why not other members of the family? Would not the country like a choice? In a world of referendums and choice, it would be sensible for us to consider a Bill that would allow the country to decide who will have the vital role of Head of State, looking at the situation in about 20 years’ time, when all sorts of factors will be in play. Should it be the heir? Should it be another member of the royal family? Or should it be citizen A. N. Other? I believe that the country might like the choice.
	I am very grateful for the chance to speak in this debate. Like all Members of the House of Commons, I think, I will support the Bill, but I believe we have to bear in mind the points that have been made. On religious grounds, the Bill strengthens the prejudice of the past by not allowing all citizens the chance to become monarch. An amendment was tabled to try to future-proof the measure, saying that in the future there might be an inheritor to the throne who decides on a same-sex marriage. What would the situation be then? Would the progeny of that marriage, either by adoption or artificial insemination, be next in line? One could see advantages in bringing new blood into the royal line, which we have seen successfully recently.
	There are many aspects to the law of succession that we need to consider. This is not a full modernisation; it is a tinkering. I believe that pressure has probably been put on the Government to ensure that this reform is very limited. In it are the seeds of future problems that will be obvious in the years ahead.

Mary Macleod: I rise to support this important constitutional Bill. Even though the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) and I do not agree on very much, I think we share admiration and affection for Her Majesty the Queen and what she has done for the country.
	The Bill is making history in provisions that I believe are long overdue. I will speak more specifically to clause 1. In 2002, just after I finished working in the royal household, I published an article saying that the Queen Mother’s death would be a catalyst of change in the monarchy and the nation. I remember the time when people lined the streets, others queued for hours at the lying in state in Westminster Hall, many signed books of condolence and millions watched the service. Those were simple signs of deep respect, love and admiration for someone who had touched their lives. Why? The Queen Mother stood for history, service and duty; she embodied a century of experiences, inventions and discoveries, times of war and times of peace. It showed that the British people care deeply about their past, and about history and tradition. Now, 11 years later, we are considering this important change.
	Why should we make this change? Partly, it is a legacy for the Queen and the Queen Mother—a legacy of respect for what they have done. Perhaps it is also to reach out
	to women across the nation to say how much we value women and what they do. No one can doubt the tremendous impact that the Queen has had in her 60-year reign. We need only look at last year’s diamond jubilee to see the huge public support that her majesty still has in this country and elsewhere. More than 15 million people in the United Kingdom watched the celebrations on their television screens and the jubilee was thought to have brought more than £1 billion to the economy. More than 2 billion people across the world—about a third of the global population—watched the most recent royal wedding. What those occasions brought to Britain was an increased sense of unity and pride in being British.
	Let us not forget the Princess Royal, who has played a full part and cannot be faulted in her role as a senior member of the royal family, absolutely committed to supporting the charities and voluntary organisations she works with. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames) said, even though he has concerns about this Bill, this country has had wonderful examples of Queens and we should build on that.
	As for the succession to the Crown, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) talked about the Queen of England. As someone who was born in London but brought up in Scotland, I would like to remind him that Her Majesty is not just Queen of England. She is Her Majesty Elizabeth II, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories.

Angus MacNeil: May I correct the hon. Lady? The Queen is not Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom; she is Queen Elizabeth I of the United Kingdom.

Mary Macleod: I am so glad to hear the hon. Gentleman being so supportive of Her Majesty the Queen.

Ian Paisley Jnr: Of course, the point is that she is our Queen.

Mary Macleod: I think we would all agree with the hon. Gentleman on that point.

Chris Bryant: The hon. Lady referred to Her Majesty being the Queen of Scotland as well. So far, none of the Ministers has referred to any consultations with the Church of Scotland about this. I wonder whether the hon. Lady knows whether there have been any such consultations.

Mary Macleod: I have no knowledge of whether those discussions have taken place, but I am sure that the Minister will respond in due course.
	As we have discussed, succession to the throne is currently based on the principle of male primogeniture, according to which male heirs take precedence and the right of succession belongs to the eldest son. However, many countries, including Sweden, Norway, Belgium, Denmark, Luxembourg and the Netherlands, have already changed that so that the right of succession passes to the sovereign’s eldest child, irrespective of gender. I believe it is now time for change in this country, too, especially when former female monarchs have played an outstanding role in our history and at a time when
	women are playing such an important role in society. There is agreement among the general public that the rule of primogeniture in particular should change, thereby showing the monarchy continuing to adapt to modern times.
	There have been many attempts to amend Crown succession over the years—one parliamentary paper lists 12 private Members’ Bills, from Members in all parts of the House, that have attempted to do so since 1979. Therefore, this is a Bill that can be supported by many Members of the House across the different parties. As has been mentioned, the marriage of His Royal Highness Prince William and Kate Middleton and their subsequent announcement that, God willing, they will have a child in six months’ time, provides further impetus to make these changes once and for all.
	Some have commented on the timing and the process of change of which this Bill is a part, but since this issue was raised—many raised it in years gone by before it was raised at the meeting in Perth on 28 October 2011—there has been a process of external discussion and debate for the last 15 months. As we can see, the Chamber is not full today, and I hope that everyone who wishes to speak will get a chance to do so. I therefore feel that there has been appropriate time to consider the issues, given the scope of the Bill.
	In today’s modern world, where there is a conscious focus on equal opportunities and breaking the glass ceiling, it would seem realistic to expect that the succession principle will be challenged. The Government have done a lot of work trying to get more women on boards, more women in Parliament and more women to set up businesses and, of course, we have had a female Prime Minister.

Stephen Pound: You just lost me.

Mary Macleod: I am sure that we all draw reassurance from the fact that we have had a great female Prime Minister, who achieved many things for this country.
	An important purpose of the Bill is to show the importance of the role of women across the land, in the monarchy and elsewhere. It sets an example. It is time for a change and we should make that change now. I am sure that the general public will join me in wishing the monarchy of this country many more centuries of success and prosperity.

Angus MacNeil: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mary Macleod). I agree with what she said about the Queen, who is held in very high respect. I remember that, in my childhood, she was a frequent visitor to the Hebrides, which of course testifies to her good sense and to the loyalty of many in the Hebrides, including myself, to the Queen and to her ongoing reign. Long may it last.
	We all agree that, while human understanding has progressed over the past 300 years, the rules governing the succession to the Crown have not kept pace with that. The present monarch is happily the Queen of 16 realms, a shared monarchy of many independent countries. The Commonwealth countries, which comprise a quarter of the nations of the Earth, maintain a looser social affiliation with the monarchy.
	We should perhaps reflect on how we got to this point. The Union of the Crowns came about in 1603. Had that been the only Union that we were considering today, I would indeed be a happy Unionist, because the monarch of Scotland took the Crown off England. Many would argue from a legal perspective that that would leave Scotland the successor state, given that the monarchy follows the Stuart line, rather than the Tudor line. That is an argument for another day, however.

Wayne David: Would the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the Tudor line began with Henry VII, who was a Welshman?

Angus MacNeil: I would be happy to acknowledge that. That was probably one of the few times when the Welsh beat the Scots. They certainly will not beat them in the rugby this spring. But we digress once more.
	Had Scotland maintained its political independence, we could have kept the kingdoms united, but not the Parliaments. The Act of Settlement of 1701 was disliked by many for religious reasons, but it was also the precipitator of the tawdry political Union of 1707, which, with the help of the coercive Alien Act of 1705 and in concert with straightforward bribery, brought about the union of the two Parliaments.

Jim Cunningham: At the time of the Act of Union in 1707, were not a lot of the Scottish nobles—for want of a better word—bankrupt? Some people might think that that is where the coercion came in.

Angus MacNeil: The hon. Gentleman reminds me of the words of Burns. Those people were “bought and sold for English gold”. That gives me an idea about taking people back—the 150 who have a vested interest in Westminster, for example. All that Alex Salmond and the Scottish Government need to do is buy and sell them for Scottish gold. If the vested interests could be bought off in that way, we might bring about independence a bit earlier.
	It was the Scottish reaction to the Act of Settlement of 1701 that led to the events that I was describing. The motivator was the desire not for a political superstate but for a unitary monarchy, and the question had to be decided before the death of Queen Anne. Fortunately, for the benefit of the House, the Scottish National party can allay the fears created by the Act of Settlement: the monarchy will continue to be shared with Scotland and England, and the need for the Acts of 1706 in England and 1707 in Scotland will disappear. We can therefore proceed to independence and dissolve the two Unions. I am sure that I am alone in this Chamber in holding that belief, but I am not alone in Scotland in so doing.

Chloe Smith: Can the hon. Gentleman confirm that he has kept the royal household informed at every stage of his plans?

Angus MacNeil: I do not have Her Majesty on my text message list, but if she wanted to drop me an e-mail, I would be happy to respond to it. However, I do know that her personal private secretary is a visitor to the Hebrides and has relatives there. The links are indeed
	multi-faceted, as the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth can testify. She, too, has links with the Hebrides and has worked in the royal household. As we can see, the monarchy reaches us all in many ways.
	History aside, the Bill is surely flawed. Many people have described how flawed it is. It is only a halfway house —a real dog’s breakfast of broken biscuits. It deals with succession and partially with freedom of religion, but it leaves the question of full freedom of religion untouched. It also leaves with the monarch the bizarre, arcane requirement for marital approval of six people in the line of succession. Some cultures have an adaptation of that requirement in the form of arranged marriages, but here in Westminster, we are institutionalising it.
	The Bill affects other realms as well, and I wonder if they will progress further than this Parliament and deal with this issue more fully, rather than having a half-way house, waiting for Westminster to catch up—as it inevitably will some day. They are free and independent, and by doing so they will save themselves an immense amount of time and hassle in the future, but they will also signal their fairness and egalitarianism to the wider world. Indeed, in Australia, republican zest seems to appear from time to time.
	It should be noted that in 1999, the Scottish Parliament pushed for a motion for the removal of any discrimination linked to the monarchy and the repeal of the Act of Settlement. So progressive opinion—at least in Scotland—is 14 years old before this issue has come to Westminster. While there may be a lot of huff and puff here at Westminster about allowing the monarchy to be Catholic, practically, I do not think it really matters. I do not think that the current or future royals are likely to convert to Catholicism, any more than would the King of Norway or the Queen of Denmark. The fact that a Parliament has gone to such lengths to discriminate against a certain faith group is surely odd in an international context. No doubt it will be ripe for lampooning, perhaps on Jon Stewart’s “Daily Show” on CNN because it is a step back and truly bizarre. I am sure that history will judge it as bizarre, especially when we think that such contrary views existed in the Scottish Parliament 14 years ago. I am not sure whether bans on Catholics exist in Denmark and Norway—if they are so allergic to the idea—or whether bans against Protestants exist in Spain. Surely there is enough smeddum and sense in those societies to remove such proscriptions.
	Equally, I hope that other monarchies do not hold the power over their relatives’ choice of spouse—a power that is rightly alien to their subjects when it comes to their nearest and dearest. When Scotland becomes independent in the next few years, we will certainly retain the monarch, as Canada, New Zealand and Australia have done, but we shall remove such infantile restrictions as we see here today. We will wait until the keystone Parliament—in a way Westminster will always be that mainly due to the residency of the monarch in close proximity to it—catches up. In the meantime, we can look forward to saying, “God save the Queen of an independent Scotland”.

Robin Walker: It is a pleasure to follow a number of excellent speakers in the debate, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid
	Sussex (Nicholas Soames) and my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mary Macleod). It is a rare privilege to speak in a debate so important and so long lasting in its effects as a Bill to change the succession to the Crown. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) that this debate is of enormous importance, so having more time could be justified, but I hope that all the important views expressed in the debate will be heard clearly by the Government and that they will be able to respond in a reassuring way.
	Perhaps only once in a couple of centuries, as the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) pointed out, does an opportunity like this arise. In this country and on the continent, wars have been fought over royal successions, and in England we owe the birth of our political party system to a debate on succession. The Tory and Whig parties, which dominated the politics of the 18th century, were forged in the fire of the exclusion crisis of 1681, some aspects and implications of which have already been touched on today. As I alluded to in my maiden speech, I believe that our monarchy is one of this country’s great constitutional treasures. Its terms are not to be changed lightly and its history, stretching back over 1,000 years beyond 1066 to King Alfred and the Saxon kings, is something of which we are constantly reminded in this extraordinary building.
	The most significant clause of today’s Bill will make a change that many believe is long overdue—equalising the right of women to succeed to the throne with that of men. I believe that this change is more than justified by the example of our current monarch. I do not believe that this is an example of political correctness, but one of learning from the examples that history and our recent experience can offer.
	Indeed, through the long history of England and of the United Kingdom we have been blessed with some magnificent examples of female leadership in our monarchs. Perhaps in part because the opportunities were so rare, it has tended to be the case throughout world history that the queens who managed to overcome the obstacles of male-dominated institutions and laws have tended to be exceptional people. Overseas examples such as Maria Theresa of Austria or Catherine the Great of Russia made a lasting mark on their countries.
	In England, the reign of the first Elizabeth was a period of trial and crowning glory, with the firm establishment of the Reformation, the defeat of the Armada and the beginnings of England’s global influence. The reign of Anne saw the great victories of Marlborough, the establishment of the Protestant succession, and the famous bounty that endowed so many beautiful churches built by Wren across the city of London. The reign of Queen Victoria saw the apogee of Britain’s power and influence, the universal male franchise, and the construction of the very building in which we stand today—a glorious celebration of the union of Crown and Parliament.
	However, perhaps more than any of those, it is our monarch today who enables us to see how valuable the role of female leadership can be. My hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth beautifully illustrated the importance of her role and influence here at home. Our Queen, who celebrated her diamond jubilee so successfully last year—when, indeed, she visited Worcester, her “faithful city”—has played a particularly vital role in building and holding together a Commonwealth of
	nations, which form an unbelievably valuable network for the United Kingdom in the 21st century. She has calmly presided over dramatic changes that saw the constitutions of other countries overturned, and has provided a thread of continuity through one of the most dynamic and fast-moving periods in world history. Her wisdom and experience have proved equal or superior to those of any imaginable man placed in the same role, and the great charm with which she has conducted her reign has ensured the continuing attachment of the British people—and many other peoples around the world—to our monarchy.
	When the first Elizabeth faced her moment of crisis, she reassured her people by saying:
	“I know I have the body of a weak and feeble woman, but I have the heart and stomach of a king”.
	Our own Elizabeth has never needed to make such an apology for being female, and, in an age in which monarchs are no longer expected to lead their troops into battle but are expected to provide leadership and inspiration from a distance, she has proved beyond all doubt her ability to do both.
	I mentioned the enormous value of the Commonwealth, and I welcome the fact that today’s debate is informed by extensive negotiations and discussions in that forum. In making their decisions on the Bill, Members can be reassured that the changes under discussion will have the support of other Commonwealth realms, and that they will strengthen and not endanger the bonds that Queen Elizabeth II has so painstakingly built with the nations of the Commonwealth.
	I share some of the concerns that have been expressed today—particularly by my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex and my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset—about other aspects of the Bill, and I think it important for the Government to respond to them carefully. It seems strange to remove one discrimination against Catholics by enabling them to marry into the royal family while retaining another by not enabling them to inherit. My hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing), however, made an important point about the ability of individuals, particularly adults, to make their own choices in that regard.
	On balance, I think that this is a strong, simple Bill to update succession to the Crown. I especially welcome its most important provision, which will ensure that in future generations we can have more diamond queens, and perhaps more examples of the sort with which our British female monarchs have already been able to provide the world.
	Three and a half centuries ago, my constituency of Worcester was the scene of the bloody battles that began and ended the English civil war. People who laid down their lives on both sides of those battles would view today’s proceedings with some approval. On one hand, the tens of thousands who fought for Parliament would see a Parliament infinitely more democratic than the one of their day, with the ability to rule on the royal succession and to engage in free debate on the matter. On the other hand, those who fought for Church and King—the “faithful city”, and its faithful citizens—would see the beginnings of another chapter in our monarchy, for which so many fought and died. As Member of Parliament for the “faithful city”, I am happy to support the Bill.

Chris Bryant: It is a great delight to follow the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr Walker). He is a sort of hereditary MP himself, so he knows a little bit about “hereditary”—and we have a few of them around. I was not entirely sure where he was going with the “diamond queen” thing; “diamond geezers” was suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan).
	I wholeheartedly support one of the main principles of the Bill, namely the change in the male preference primogeniture rules that have come to us through common law. We have taken far too long to resolve the issue. Other countries with constitutional monarchies got on with it much earlier: Denmark, Sweden and the Netherlands all dealt with it in the 1980s. Indeed, it was much more difficult for Sweden, because at the time the heir to the throne was a boy, Carl Philip, who was ousted from his hereditary status by his older sister Victoria. Sweden took a more courageous decision and we have been rather slow, perhaps because we have felt so confident about our current monarch. So I support the change in the Bill but I do have some worries. A great deal of reference has been made to Pandora’s box, but that is the wrong image to use, because at the bottom of that box was always hope.
	The more worrying concern is that when we pull out one of the threads of the constitution, there is a danger of unravelling the whole jumper—if the jumper is indeed made out of threads. I worry because the religion of the monarch in this country depends on a suite of legislation. The Coronation Oath Act 1688 makes it clear in precisely what words the monarch shall accept the throne and what oath they shall make at their coronation. That was reformed in the 20th century and, in fact, Her Majesty the Queen did not use the prescribed oath, as laid down in legislation. We need to address that issue; in the past Parliament has decided what the oath should be, not the monarch.

Dan Rogerson: Several hon. Members in the Chamber have examined the issues involved, as have many others, who are busy elsewhere, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that out in the country at large there will be little understanding of them? This is perhaps part of the problem. Our constitutional history is fascinating, but if we had a far more transparent and, dare I say it, written constitution, people might understand more deeply what we are talking about.

Chris Bryant: I have always been in favour of a written constitution, but that is not what we are debating. The important job of work that we have to do when we write elements of our constitution into statute is to make sure that they meet any possible eventualities that could come down the road, because we can never imagine precisely what is going to happen. In 1936, we had a crisis because there were no means by which the monarch could abdicate, so we had the odd situation where the monarch announced his abdication and the next day legislation had to be got through the House. As was said earlier, that took only 10 minutes, but none the less we had to make legislation on the hoof.
	The Act of Settlement contains two clauses that make different provisions in relation to the monarch. As the hon. Member for 1642 said, section II says that anyone who
	“is are or shall be reconciled to or shall hold Communion with the See or Church of Rome or shall profess the Popish Religion or shall marry a Papist”
	shall be excluded from the succession. So I raise the genuine point: if someone marries a Roman Catholic in a Catholic church—the Minister said that Her Majesty has been to a Roman Catholic church—it is difficult to see how that person is not then reconciled to the See of Rome. I hope that the Church of England will be reconciled to the See of Rome. The advances we have seen in ecumenism over the years do not just mean that we have rejected the ludicrous prejudice that there was about Catholicism and the belief that somehow or other a Catholic could not be a patriot. We need to go further, and I hope that in the ecumene of all the Churches there will be reconciliation one day. I know that that is the view of the most recent Archbishop of Canterbury and I suspect it is the view of the current one, so it would seem odd if it were not then the view of the monarch. I want to start asking whether we do not need to change all the provisions in relation to the religion of the monarch. As an Anglican, I would have no fear of a Roman Catholic who accepted a series of oaths to protect the Church of England, as established by law—

Jim Cunningham: In 1960, President Kennedy, a Catholic, took an oath and it did not commit him, in any way, to being against non-Catholics.

Chris Bryant: No, but that was a big issue in the election of that period. The situation is somewhat different in America, as it has a clear division of state and religion whereas this country expressly does not. We have two established Churches in this country: the Church of England and the Church of Scotland. [Interruption.] Yes, the Church of Scotland is established by law.

Anne McGuire: That is always an issue of debate. As I understand it, the Church of Scotland does not see itself as the established Church and takes great pride in that fact. I hate to correct my hon. Friend on such an issue, because I know that he is an expert.

Chris Bryant: No, no—I am not a Calvinist. I merely point out to my right hon. Friend that one of the provisions of the 1706 and 1707 Acts of Union is that the monarch, when accepting the Scottish throne, has to make a separate accession oath that guarantees the protection of the Church of Scotland. That is why I say that several provisions in law relate to the religion of the monarch. Section III of the Act of Settlement states that the monarch
	“shall joyn in Communion with the Church of England”.
	That is yet another provision.

Alan Beith: Surely the position is that although the Church of Scotland is not and never has been established in the sense that the Church of England is, with a degree of parliamentary control, it is a national church in Scotland and the Queen attends the Presbyterian Church in Scotland and takes communion within that Church. That is where her Scottish allegiance lies, rather than with the Scottish Episcopal Church.

Chris Bryant: Absolutely. I was not confusing the Church of Scotland with the Piscies, as it were—

Angus MacNeil: rose—

Therese Coffey: rose—

Chris Bryant: I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I will give way to the hon. Lady; it is not male primogeniture any more.

Therese Coffey: I believe that the website of the Royal Household states that the Church of Scotland is established, but that Her Majesty is an ordinary member and not its Supreme Governor.

Chris Bryant: Yes, but that does not change the fact that when somebody becomes monarch they have to make an accession oath on the Church of Scotland. That is my only point. We have a suite of legislation and once we start pulling at one of the elements of it there is a danger we will unpack the whole lot.

Angus MacNeil: rose—

Chris Bryant: I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman, as I have given way rather too often already.
	I would quite like to change things as I think there are many different ways of being an established Church. I do not want to disestablish the Church of England, but I think that it could be established in a different way.

Martin Horwood: rose—

Chris Bryant: I am not going to give way to the hon. Gentleman.
	Let me move on to the Royal Marriages Act. The Act came into being because George III’s brother, Henry, Duke of Cumberland, had in 1771 married a woman, Mrs Anne Horton, who was not only a widow but a commoner. Horace Walpole thought that
	“her coquetry was so active, so varied and yet so habitual, that it was difficult not to see through it and…difficult to resist it.”
	It was on those lines, broadly speaking, that the King was opposed to his brother’s marriage. Once the Act was introduced, he learned that his other brother, William, Duke of Gloucester and Edinburgh, had married Maria Walpole, daughter of Sir Edward Walpole and granddaughter of Sir Robert, who was also a widow and, in addition to all the other problems she might have had, was illegitimate.
	The King was somewhat scandalised by all that and the Act was brought in, but it was a phenomenal failure as a piece of legislation because in 1785 the Prince of Wales, George III’s son, married Maria Fitzherbert, who was not only a Roman Catholic but the aunt of a cardinal and who was twice widowed. The King was furious and refused to give consent; the marriage was consequently declared null and void, although even at the moment of his death the former Prince of Wales insisted on having the portrait of Maria Fitzherbert around his neck. In 1793, another relative, Prince Augustus Frederick, had his marriage to Lady Augusta Murray declared invalid. When she died, he married illegally yet again without permission of the throne.
	The Act has been a phenomenally unsuccessful piece of legislation and I do not understand why we are keeping any element of it. Why should the monarch decide who their next of kin and the five others who
	come afterwards should be able to marry and on what basis will they make that decision? All the previous decisions have related to whether someone was a commoner, an actress or illegitimate, and I do not think that any of those issues would concern the British people today. In other countries that still have a similar provision it is not the decision of the monarch—it is the decision of Parliament. Indeed, in the Netherlands, it was decided that one person would be excluded from the succession because of their marriage. Personally, I do not think that we should make those decisions at all.
	It is bizarre to insist on six members of the royal family in the line of succession, rather than two, five, 25 or whatever. I urge the Minister to explain why she feels that it is important to keep that provision. If we are going to keep it, there should be a role for Ministers to advise the monarch on whether to refuse consent. Otherwise, someone who was No. 7 will suddenly become No. 6, or someone who was No. 6 may suddenly become No. 7—as will happen later this year. Those people would be free to marry in whatever way they wanted if they were not No. 6.
	I warmly support the broad thrust of the two main measures in the Bill, but I am worried that where the Government are going will unpick other things that we should look at in the round, not just in a short Bill.

Christopher Pincher: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this important debate. It has been a great pleasure to listen to it. I have heard some excellent speeches, made by the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn), with whom I profoundly disagree, and by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), with whom, frighteningly, I find much common cause—it is as frightening for me as it is for him. I was impressed, too, by the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames), with whom I very much agree. He does not speak so much for the Conservative party as for the constitution, and we all honour him for that.
	I am profoundly pleased that I have had an opportunity to speak before my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), because I suspect—I shall allow him to speak for himself—that when we hear him speak he will not prove himself to be so much a scion of high Toryism as a dangerous radical. We very much look forward to hearing what he says in the fullness of time.
	I am pleased to be able to speak in the debate, because the intention of the Bill is laudable and sensible, as it will update the rules on the succession to the Crown so that they are in keeping with the modern values of our people. A monarch must reign with consent: that is the case now, and it must be the case in future. The Bill removes unnecessary discrimination, and it tidies up what we might call the sinuous tentacles of the Royal Marriages Act 1772, which is welcome. However, I should like to make a couple of points about the Bill’s provisions, which I hope my hon. Friend the Minister, in the absence of the Deputy Prime Minister, will be able to address so that I do not have to make them again in Committee.
	In that positive spirit, I shall address the question of retrospection in clause 2. I am instinctively against retrospective legislation, no matter how good the intent
	might be. Clause 2 attempts to restore to the line of succession those people who have married Catholics down the years. I quite accept that we should remove the disqualification bar preventing people who have married Catholics from succeeding to the Crown, but in making those changes—the Earl of St Andrews, for example, and Prince Michael of Kent will be restored to the line of succession—we are changing the order of succession. Those further away than the Earl and Prince Michael are pushed further from the line of succession by the changes. If we are prepared to make changes to the order of succession by dint of restoring Catholics to that order, is it not right that we make clause 1 retrospective, so that female heirs of the Queen move up the order of succession? Princess Anne, the Princess Royal, is the only living person who would be affected, together with her heirs, so it would not be a massive change to the order of succession, but it would be a logical change and one in keeping with the retrospective nature of part of the Bill.
	The second aspect that I wish to address relates to the point made by the hon. Member for Rhondda about the Royal Marriages Act 1772. I find myself, strangely enough, making common cause with him. Although I agree that we should remove the Act or change it so that there are not thousands of people to whose marriage the Queen could technically give or withhold consent, it is odd that clause 3 states that
	“the 6 persons next in the line of succession to the Crown must obtain the consent of Her Majesty before marrying.”
	Where did the number six come from? Why not three, five or 12? Six is not a prime number, a biblical number or a lucky number.

Angus MacNeil: The only thing that springs to mind is that if we add up the number in the Queen’s family and the number in Prince Charles’s family, we get six. That is the long and the short of it, I think.

Christopher Pincher: I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman’s arithmetic, flawed though it may be. Perhaps that is why he is a member of the Scottish National party. I look forward to the Minister explaining what the rationale is.
	As the hon. Member for Rhondda rightly pointed out, if we put in place a rule which says that the monarch can and must give consent to the marrying of the six persons nearest in line to the throne, imagine a scenario where a monarch has three children, who each have two or three children. The monarch will soon be in the invidious position where grandchild No. 4, who is fifth in line to the throne, must seek consent of the monarch to marry, but grandchild No. 6, who is seventh in line to the throne, need not seek that consent. That does not seem fair.

Chris Bryant: Also, we do not have a capricious monarch at present, but there have certainly been capricious monarchs in the past who might deliberately want to affect the succession and might therefore refuse consent capriciously. There is no means in the Act whereby anybody can prevent the monarch from exercising their judgment capriciously so as directly to exclude a particular person. Surely in the end the monarch should be decided either by straightforward succession or by Parliament.

Christopher Pincher: The hon. Gentleman may well be thinking of capricious monarchs such as Edward II. The 1772 Act, which my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset may prove to be a dead Act in any case, allows for any member of the royal family over the age of 25, having sought the approval of the Privy Council, after a year then to seek the consent of Parliament to their marriage. The Bill tightens up the rules significantly. Parliament and the Privy Council play no part in the matter. The monarch can choose or choose not to give consent to the marriage, whatever the age of a member of the royal family within the rules of succession. So the hon. Gentleman has a good point.
	I would be interested to hear from my hon. Friend the Minister why these changes have been proposed. If the point is for the monarch to have some control and leverage over those members of the royal family who are active and who are Royal Highnesses, why choose the number six? It is a narrow number. Why not simply say that the heirs of Queen Elizabeth II should have to ask consent of the monarch? That would be a nod towards the present Act, which recognises George II as the fount of all consent, as it were. It would honour Her Majesty in her diamond jubilee year. It would regularise the situation and give that sort of control to future monarchs. The Minister might be about to say that it would mean that in 200 or 300 years there could be hundreds or thousands of people to whom the monarch would have to give consent, but I suspect that no one here will be particularly concerned about that then—if nothing else has crumbled, our headstones almost certainly will have done.
	I support the Bill in broad terms and shall vote to give it a Second Reading, but I hope that the Minister will take on board the concerns that I and other Members of the House have raised to ensure that it is robust; will stand the test of time; recognises and can deal with any unforeseen and foreseen consequences; and provides us with a settled settlement.-

Nia Griffith: I rise to speak briefly in this debate. I very much welcome the provision in the Bill that will mean that a younger brother will no longer be preferred to an older sister in the succession to the Crown. It is long overdue. It is an important step on the long and tortuous trek to greater equality of opportunity between men and women in our society. It is a reminder that, in modernising the centuries of tradition, custom and practice that we have all absorbed as part of our upbringing, we need to look at all aspects of our lives and our society in order to develop a society that affords greater equality between men and women.
	It is easy to forget, because Her Gracious Majesty has had such a long and successful reign, that had she had brothers, she would not have become Queen unless they and their children had passed away before her. It is welcome that women and men will now be treated equally in the succession to the throne. It gets rid of one more prejudice and sets a good example.
	I welcome the clause that allows a potential heir to marry a Roman Catholic without losing the right to succeed to the throne, because that removes a particular religious prejudice. As has been pointed out, marriage to people of other faiths does not disqualify someone
	from succeeding to the throne. However, the clause raises a question about the religion of any children of that marriage. Whatever religion they are brought up in, and regardless of whether they have any deeply held religious beliefs, they have to become a member of the Church of England in order to remain in line to the throne. Is that a reasonable requirement? Does it not mean that people will simply pay lip service to religion? Is it reasonable for the monarch, our Head of State, to be obliged to be a defender of the faith and to have a specific role in the Church of England? We would not have to worry about whether potential heirs to the throne were brought up in any particular faith, or indeed no faith, if we did not expect the monarch to be an adherent of one particular faith.
	We all know the historic reasons for that situation and why the Head of State is expected to be an Anglican, but we now live in very different times. We live in a society in which there are many different religious views. In the UK today, apart from the centuries-old Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church, we have a non-conformist tradition that is hundreds of years old. We have people of many other faiths and many people who do not have a faith at all. The Church of England is not the established Church of the whole United Kingdom. In response to the rise of non-conformists in Wales, the Church in Wales was disestablished in 1920, and there has not been an established Church in Northern Ireland since 1871.
	The clause is a missed opportunity. It misses the opportunity to decouple the role of monarch from a specific role in the Church of England, which will continue to prevent anyone of any other faith or none from succeeding to the throne. It seems to me that we cannot legislate for someone’s faith. If someone has a faith, they have a faith, and if they do not, they do not, but if someone is expected to take on the role of monarch, we are putting them in a situation in which they will have to pay lip service to a faith, possibly one in which they do not believe, making a mockery of those who have a true faith.
	I completely fail to understand the clause about the six persons next in line to the throne requiring the monarch’s consent to marriage. Having had so much equality legislation, we are now legislating for someone to be prejudiced, whether on a personal basis or for any reason, out of jealousy or spite. The clause seems to make absolutely no sense.
	Yes, we very much welcome the opportunity for an elder sister to be preferred over her younger brother in the succession to the throne, but I have serious questions about other clauses and the opportunities that could have been taken to do things better.

Jessica Lee: I rise to speak in support of the Succession to the Crown Bill. I will not detain the House for too long; I will focus my remarks on a significant change—that the gender of a child born after 28 October 2011 will have no relevance in determining the succession to the throne.
	We heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames), a man of great knowledge whom we listened to with great interest. He said that a number of the statutes that the Bill may affect had been
	asleep for 300 years or so. He may have a point, but it is possible to wake statutes up from their slumber from time to time, rearrange them slightly, improve their sleeping positions and let them settle down and drift off to sleep again until further improvement is required.
	Some may say that in 2013 the changes are overdue or at the very least timely, not least in the wake of Her Majesty’s diamond jubilee celebrations last year and the fine example of leadership set by Her Majesty the Queen; I hope to return to that subject in due course.
	The Bill makes changes that reflect not only examples of successful female monarchs but the reality of working life across the country; I think particularly of my own constituency. In Erewash, there is a long-standing industrial heritage involving what some would say were traditionally male occupations—upholstery, mining, lace making and engineering have been key industries there.
	However, from the heritage of Erewash have arisen industries that have grown, changed and been able to allow strong female leadership to develop across many sectors. There are many instances of women being the main breadwinners in families, my mother being one example. There are many other women in management and in schools. There are also women entrepreneurs who have started small businesses in Erewash and a number of women serving and working hard on the Erewash partnership board, our local enterprise board. There are also many examples of strong female leadership in community groups and voluntary organisations; indeed, Erewash has been represented by three different female MPs since 1992—a tradition that some of us hope will continue for a long time.
	It simply makes no sense in 2013 not to apply such rules to the succession of our monarch. I have always been a committed royalist and proud to be so. My family can, to say the least, boast no royal connections or history, but I was raised to respect and support our Queen and country. My family are far from having royal connections, although my great-great aunt Amy was married to one of the farm workers on the Sandringham estate. My mother can recollect visiting the cottage on the estate as a child.
	I return to the comments that I made at the outset. Her Majesty the Queen Elizabeth II has set a fine example during her 60 or so years on the throne. There is every reason to make necessary changes through the Succession to the Crown Bill now. Elizabeth II has brought a stability to our ever-changing and modernising world, but she has embraced her duties and responsibilities and moved with the times.
	There are many other examples of strong female monarchs throughout our history, all of whom have their place in setting the scene for this timely change to the rules of succession. I have a particular love for Tudor history, an interest that I developed at school and continued through university. My all-time favourite monarch by far is Elizabeth I; in my office, I have a print of Elizabeth I addressing Parliament. Her courage and determination were among her many qualities which resulted in such a lengthy and successful reign. One skill, of which I am sure you would approve, Mr Deputy Speaker, is that she took much enjoyment and time in preparing her speeches to address Parliament—a skill and a habit in which I am sure we are all well versed.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: It occurs to me that Elizabeth I got extraordinarily angry when the Commons dared to discuss the succession and, indeed, imprisoned Members of Parliament for doing so. I therefore wonder whether my hon. Friend might not admire her quite so much in that respect.

Jessica Lee: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who, I am sure, agrees that there is a fine history in this country of monarchs hiding their feelings. Whatever historians may report in future, the private thoughts of the current Queen Elizabeth remain private.

Angus MacNeil: I am a bit alarmed by what the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) said about Queen Elizabeth I. Queen Elizabeth I of the United Kingdom is Queen at the moment, so I hope we do not end up in the Tower.

Jessica Lee: I know that the hon. Gentleman feels strongly about this point, which has already been raised, and believes that the current monarch is Elizabeth I. I, for one, will not enter into that debate any further.
	I will end by quoting from what is perhaps one of the most famous and well-documented speeches made by Elizabeth I. It is another reason to support the Bill and a timely reminder that leadership requires determination and strength rather than on whether the sovereign is a man or a woman. When Elizabeth addressed her troops at Tilbury in 1588 in the midst of the threat from the Spanish armada, she famously said, midway through her speech:
	“I know I have the body but of a weak and feeble woman; but I have the heart and stomach of a king, and of a king of England too”.
	In supporting the changes to the rules on primogeniture, if there were ever words to put the case squarely that women can perform a task of great leadership and strength, they are those words.

Ian Paisley Jnr: At the outset, I declare an interest in that the changes brought about today will continue to discriminate against people of my faith, but I have absolutely no problem with that. In respect of those people against whom the law will continue to perpetuate discrimination, we have to recognise that that discrimination has worked consistently to date. It is utter folly on the part of the Government to unpick this settled matter, and I believe that they need to tread a lot more carefully. I agree with the right hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames) that we should tread very cautiously and avoid rushing headlong towards the implementation of changes when little consideration and less consultation appear to have been part of the process. We simply do not know what the consequences of the changes will be or what they will achieve.
	I say for the record that I agree with the provision to change the rules on primogeniture and believe that it will find wide public approval. However, we have not sought public support for this change to our constitution, and the Government should make provision for wider consultation before they implement it. We ought to be
	forward-looking and recognise that making such a change now has the potential for significant consequences downstream.
	Clause 2(1) opens up a royal Pandora’s box. We should be minimising points of potential crisis, not creating the certainty that there will be a crisis. That is why so many amendments were tabled on this specific matter. While I welcome the points raised and reiterated by the Minister about what the Bill does and does not do, I believe it would be reasonable to insert in it a provision that ensures that the offspring of the monarch—our future monarch, the heir to the throne—will be brought up in the communion of the Anglican Church. I think that would keep a lot of sleeping dogs at rest.
	My amendment gives expression to the Government’s own words that the Bill does not change the rule that the monarch must not be a Roman Catholic. If that is the case, they will make satisfactory provision for that in legislation which could alter that settled position. Clarity here would be a welcome addition to the Bill. However, I have listened carefully to the Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister, who said that that was outside the scope of this Bill. I accept that point and will reflect on it when and if we come to a Division later.
	Without such a provision, the Bill could create a set of circumstances wherein a future heir will have to make a choice between faith and throne. To create a situation in which a person has to choose whether to discard a closely held faith for position is simply unjust. We need to ensure that we do not create the conditions for such a crisis. The Bill suggests that faith in this day and age is a disposable commodity, which is pure secularism. We should avoid that and make the matter clear in the Bill.
	If the Act of Succession remains unchanged by the Bill, the Government have a duty to ensure that the Bill does not create confusion at a later stage when a future heir could be brought up in a different faith and then have to discard it in order to inherit. It would be far better to leave the matter alone or to insert a clause that makes it clear that the future Defender of the Faith will be brought up in the Anglican faith, irrespective of the religious faith of one of their parents. Otherwise, the Government should be honest and consider introducing legislation that disestablishes the Church. That is a matter for another day, but one that I hope this Government will not pursue, because it would be a retrograde step.
	We have a great and glorious history, exemplified by the ongoing standing of our monarch not only in this nation but across the world, and by how much she is cherished by this nation. We should tread very carefully in trying to unpick and unravel aspects of our constitution that are best left well alone, as they continue to serve purpose for which they were developed.

Therese Coffey: It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate. Clause 1 is absolute common sense, especially in today’s world. It is a welcome step and I am pleased that it is my Government who have introduced it, though admittedly with cross-party support.
	I will spend most of my speech addressing clause 2. I say at the outset that I support an established Church in
	this country and am happy for it to be the Church of England. Indeed, the whole question of who is eligible to be the heir to the throne or, indeed, to be the sovereign of our nation rests on their Church of England faith. In addition, much is connected with marriage—indeed, it was arguments with the Pope back in the 16th century that led to the establishment of the Church of England, which led to the thorny issues that we are examining today and, let us not forget, to several hundred years of persecution of people on the basis of their faith.
	I recognise that the Bill is a symbolic gesture, and on those grounds I welcome and support it, but we should also recognise that it is only a token gesture: the person who will benefit from it is the person in line to the throne, not necessarily their children or, indeed, their spouse, if they are of the Catholic faith. Although I do not pretend to be a canon lawyer, there are certainly things that we need to explore along those lines. It is somewhat ironic that the two Ministers leading the Bill through the House are both self-proclaimed atheists. I suppose that means that they are able to take a dispassionate view of the Bill, but perhaps they do not understand the sensitivity or frustration felt by people of faith about the entrenchment and discrimination that the Bill will undoubtedly perpetuate.

Damian Collins: Does my hon. Friend agree that, ultimately, the monarch, regardless of whatever rules Parliament creates, governs with the consent of Parliament and the people, and that plenty of monarchs, regardless of what the statute of their day said, have found to their cost the error of no longer having the consent of Parliament and the people?

Therese Coffey: My hon. Friend, who is also of my faith, makes an excellent point. Of course, the situation he describes led to the execution of a monarch in times past. Frankly, the person with whom they replaced him is one of the people whom I am determined to write out of parliamentary history at some point, if possible by removing the statue outside. We will leave that debate for another day, but it is not only because he banned Christmas—we can just imagine how miserable he was.
	My hon. Friend makes an important point, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames) seems to share his concern. It was interesting to hear the hon. Members for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) ask why someone being deemed the Supreme Governor of the Church of England is invalidated by their not being a member of the Church of England. Would a member of the Church of Scotland or the Church in Wales have to convert formally to the Church of England to take up the role of sovereign? I know that Her Majesty takes her faith very seriously—that is one of her many admirable qualities.

Chris Bryant: My history of Parliament is coming out next year, just to inform the hon. Lady that there is no point in her writing one now.
	The main reason why a monarch has to have a relationship with the Church of England is that they have to be crowned. The coronation service is provided for in canon law, and therefore in statute law.

Therese Coffey: I thank the hon. Gentleman and look forward to seeing his book. I see him in the Library regularly, where I assume he is researching it assiduously.
	I am sure the hon. Gentleman will note the fact that the title of Defender of the Faith was originally granted to Henry VIII by Pope Leo X in 1521. It was then rescinded nine years later, after Henry VIII decided to remove himself from the Church of Rome. It was Parliament that restored that title in 1544.

Chris Bryant: At the King’s insistence.

Therese Coffey: Indeed, but it still decided to do so.
	Of course I will not oppose the Bill, and I welcome large parts of it, but the point that I am trying to make is that we should not pretend that it is some great second Catholic emancipation that will remove any particular discrimination.
	The question was raised today about what would happen if a future sovereign chose to marry outside the Church of England, of if they chose to marry somebody of the same sex under other legislation that the Deputy Prime Minister and the Cabinet Office are taking through the House. That marriage ceremony would not be recognised by the Church of England under the proposed laws, so what would it mean for their being the Supreme Governor of the Church of England in future?
	I do not wish to get into personal things, but it is not a state secret that the Deputy Prime Minister has married a Catholic person and his children are being brought up in the Catholic faith. That matter is taken seriously in various parts of canon law, and although, as I said, I do not pretend to be a canon lawyer, I wish to make various points about that. Back in 1970, in the motu proprio on mixed marriage, the Church acted to remove automatic excommunication as long as people tried to ensure that their children would be brought up Catholic. I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) will be relieved to know that in the same motu proprio, the penalty for parents who sent their children to non-Catholic schools was removed. Although his alma mater produced a martyr in the Reformation, one cannot say that that school is a Catholic one. I am sure he is about to intervene on me.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I think Henry VI would disagree with my hon. Friend on that.

Therese Coffey: I am sure that the bishop who confers confirmation on the majority of pupils in Eton college is not the Archbishop of Westminster.
	My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister referred to certain royals who had married Catholics. Again, I do not want to get too personal, but one of his examples was a marriage that was dissolved and then annulled a year later; within a month, the same people had married, but the Pope had refused dispensation for marriage in a Catholic church on the grounds that the person who could have been heir to the throne had written explicitly that his children could not be brought up in the Roman Catholic Church but would be brought up in the Church of England. As we know, centuries of back and forth between the Church of Rome and the monarch of England meant that five years later, Pope John Paul II allowed that situation to be validated, which I am sure was welcome.
	Such things happen the other way. My grandfather in Godmanchester was brought up as a Salvationist but became a Catholic to marry my grandmother in Dublin. I appreciate that sometimes the Church of Rome can be demanding the other way in wanting to encourage marriages of similar faiths. However, I diverge. My point is that it is important that the Government realise how, in matters of faith, making bland statements about people in church marrying those of a different religion could automatically dismiss the important religious views of the spouse to be. When one of the people due to be heir to the throne married a Catholic, that Catholic converted to the Church of England—out of love, I am sure, for her future husband—but we should not take such issues lightly. This provision is a welcome step, but we should acknowledge that although it removes one element of discrimination, it entrenches others until we have a fresh Act of Parliament.

Ben Wallace: I did not intend to speak in this debate but I am one of three Members of Parliament whose constituency includes a significant amount of land belonging to the Duchy of Lancaster. The constituency of my neighbour the Deputy Speaker, the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans), includes large areas of the duchy—including a very fine pub, the Inn at Whitewell, which is owned by Her Majesty the Queen, or the duchy—as does that of my colleague and hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw). We are therefore acutely aware of the nuanced differences between the monarch—the sovereign—and the Duke of Lancaster, as our Queen is known in the county palatine of Lancashire.
	When we consider the impact of the Bill, it is important to understand how it could impact on the other titles, assets and offices of our sovereign. I am looking for clarity. I do not oppose the principle of what the Bill seeks to achieve, although I sometimes perhaps favour the route of the old clan chieftains in Scotland of choosing the most appropriate person to succeed rather than the oldest or youngest, or a male or female. The Saxons sometimes adopted a similar tactic.
	Today the duchy is more than just a title; it represents huge amounts of land and assets. It owns about 19,000 hectares of land, valued at £350 million in 2010, so a significant asset is attached to the title, and we must understand the problem that the Bill may create. In the next debate, it is important that the Government set out clearly the position that may need to be addressed.
	The current Duchy of Lancaster is the second creation, set up for John of Gaunt, son of Edward III, in 1362. It became a powerful duchy, and as a result, when Henry Bolingbroke succeeded as Henry IV and was crowned in 1399, he was keen to ensure that his inheritance and that of his children was kept separate from the Crown and the sovereign, as at that time kings tended to lose their crowns.

Damian Collins: My hon. Friend raises an important point about Henry Bolingbroke, but is that not a demonstration of the flexible nature of the powers of succession, given that he usurped the Crown?

Ben Wallace: One reason I do not oppose the Bill is that I do not live in a fantasy world in which Parliament and others have never interfered with the succession. In fact, if Parliament had not, we might still have a Stuart king. I, as a Scot descended from Jacobites, would probably have been quite happy with that.

Chris Bryant: I hope the hon. Gentleman will not listen to his Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins). If Henry Bolingbroke did usurp the throne, the present monarch is not the right monarch. I think it was decided by Parliament that Richard II had already abdicated and relinquished the throne and that therefore there was a vacancy, much as happened in 1688.

Ben Wallace: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point. However, Henry IV’s first act on the throne was to pass the charter of duchy liberties, in which he asserted that the duchy was his possession, separate from those of the sovereign and the Crown. That was confirmed by Henry VII in 1485, and for the benefit of officials and Whitehall it is important to note that there has since been no fresh settlement. Perhaps the clarity we are looking for is found way back in 1485.
	This is why clarity is important. The Bill, with which I agree, could create an eldest daughter as sovereign, who will take precedent over a younger son. Perhaps that is where the problem lies. If a monarch has two children, the eldest a daughter and the youngest a son, the Bill empowers the eldest to become the next sovereign. It makes no mention of the Duchy of Lancaster or the title of Duke of Lancaster, separate from the Crown, and nor does it mention what will happen to the assets. Without clarity, the Bill might mean that we have today stripped Her Majesty the Queen of £300 million-worth of assets from her inventory.
	I do not believe that that is what is intended, but clarity is needed. It is easy to ensure that the income is diverted to the sovereign. It is highly likely that existing statute provides that income from the Duchies of Lancaster and of Cornwall will continue, but the question of ownership and the title requires clarity.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Having considered the Duchy of Lancaster, will my hon. Friend consider the Duchy of Normandy, and whether the Queen’s possessions as Duke of Normandy might divert to a younger male child when the Crown went to an elder female one?

Ben Wallace: I am not an expert on the other duchies in this land, but my hon. Friend proves the point that interfering with succession and fiddling with titles is easier said than done, especially when the titles are so old that they date back to some of the first interferences in succession and the Crown. When the title is linked so much to assets, the House is owed a clear explanation.

Christopher Pincher: Will my hon. Friend invite the Minister to make clear what will happen to the assets and title of the Duchy of Cornwall, which have historically passed through the male line through male primogeniture?

Ben Wallace: I stand to be corrected, but my understanding is that there is a difference between the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall.
	My understanding is that the latter comes into existence with the heir to the throne and effectively dissolves when the monarch dies. The Duchy of Lancaster goes back far longer. As far as we can see, it is a separate title and therefore cannot be excluded without excluding the assets that go with it.
	I do not expect the Minister to have the 1485 charter at her disposal, or that anyone will to be able to produce the answer instantly. I am sure it will take far greater legal brains to produce a clear, concise solution. There might be no problem at all: the charter may make it clear that it does not matter whether the heir is male or female, dealing only with definition of “sovereign”. That may be the answer, but we need clarity.
	As ever, changes such as this are easier said than done. That shows how far back our historical ties go. For 700 years the Duchy of Lancaster has owned some of the land in my constituency. Some of my constituents are tenants of the Duchy of Lancaster and rely for their livelihoods on such things being made clear. They, like Her Majesty the Queen and her assets, deserve that clarity.

Martin Horwood: I should like to reassure the hon. Gentleman and perhaps Ministers about any risk to the Queen’s assets. There is an editorial cut-off date in clause 1, so the measure applies only to persons born after 28 October 2011. On a constituency note, that must be reassuring to my constituent Zara Phillips, who would otherwise have gone nine places up the order of succession. I am sure her marriage to Mike Tindall would have been approved all the same.

Ben Wallace: My hon. Friend’s point is well made, but the position is unclear. The Government want to get this right, so hopefully they will furnish the House with the clarity I seek.

Richard Drax: I should probably declare an interest. During the glorious revolution, my family plotted in an ice house to remove the Catholics and bring William of Orange to this country. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) and I should have a meeting later to try to resolve our differences. That was many years ago, and times have changed considerably since—[Interruption.] I hear an hon. Member say, “Not enough!”, but thank heavens there are a few dinosaurs left.

Wayne David: I was wondering whether the hon. Gentleman was relying on parliamentary approval to make sure that he is not in any way conflicting with the laws of the land.

Richard Drax: Treason, if that is what the hon. Gentleman is implying, does not apply to my family—certainly not, and certainly not to me today.
	I will speak briefly, because so much has been said and said so well, not least by my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames). I concur with every word he said. I also concur with much of what my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset said, not least about the problems we would have if a Roman Catholic married into the royal family.
	Under current rules, that heir would not be able to take the throne without more amendments to Acts and regulations, which could cause huge angst and difficulty in the years ahead. Either we do the whole thing, or we do not tinker with our constitution, as we are attempting to do.
	So many hundreds of years of history have brought the country to this point. We must not ignore the fact that our history comes with bloodshed, religion, all kinds of glorious moments and some very sad ones. We are here at this point today and we should respect hugely what has gone before. I am nervous that nearly 700 years of tradition will be trampled on in two days. Two days of debate is not long enough, and I beg the Front Bench to give us more time to discuss this. I am sure that similar views will be expressed in the other place.
	We have no mandate to change or tinker with the succession. It was not in our manifesto. My postbag, like those of colleagues I am sure, is not bulging with requests to do what we propose to do. In fact, my postbag is bulging with other, far more serious issues, not least the EU, immigration, jobs and all the other big issues we face. In fact, the only letters I have received on this matter—a lot of them—are from republicans who see any move to tinker with our royal family as a chance to rid the country of our monarchy. I am sure that all right hon. and hon. Members support the Queen, as I do, and are loyal subjects. It is interesting that even the slightest opening has produced an opportunity for republicans, who want to see the royal family gone, to try and exploit.

Damian Collins: Does my hon. Friend not agree, though, that it would be fairer to the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge to resolve this matter before they produce their first child?

Richard Drax: That is a good point, but as I understand it the legislation will be retrospective to 28 October 2011 anyway, so why the rush? If that is what is leading us to make this decision so quickly, I would say that it is another reason why we should not be doing so. Republicanism is one example, dare I say it, of the law of unintended consequences.
	As I understand it, the Bill was not introduced in the House of Commons until every Commonwealth realm had consented in writing. We are told that the Palace has been consulted, but I believe there is still much work to be done. It is a sad day when we are fast-tracking this honoured institution through this place in such a short time. As I said, the Bill is going to be retrospective and, as I understand it, the changes will apply to any child born after 28 October 2011. Why not allow us, the law-makers, more time for consideration?
	We owe our country’s stability—indeed, the existence of the monarchy itself—to a series of Acts and laws stretching back centuries. They include the Treason Act 1351, the Bill of Rights of 1689, the Act of Settlement of 1701 and the Regency Act 1937. If we insist on proceeding with this Bill, I understand that we will need to amend no fewer than nine Bills and nine Acts.
	My final objection to this Bill is that far wiser heads than mine have counselled against such changes, which will have unforeseen and unintended consequences that
	could shake the foundations of our country. Even the Labour Government under Blair shied away from this, because the complexities outweighed the benefits.

Daniel Kawczynski: My hon. Friend is outlining his various objections to the Bill and the speed with which it is rushing through, but does he agree with the principle—I speak as a Roman Catholic myself—of stopping discrimination against Roman Catholics in accession?

Richard Drax: As I understand it, the Bill will not stop discrimination. A Roman Catholic child is not able to inherit the throne under the current law, as my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset outlined at the start of this debate, so Roman Catholics are still being discriminated against. As my hon. Friend also said, either we change the whole thing or we do not touch it at all.

Wayne David: Just for the record, will the hon. Gentleman confirm that, although he was correct to say that the Labour Government under Blair shied away from these changes, the Labour Government under Brown embraced them?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Under who?

Richard Drax: As my hon. Friend rather amusingly says, “Under who?” Indeed, I do not think we have seen the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) for some time.
	To sum up, as a Member of Parliament—

Chris Bryant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Richard Drax: I am just about to finish and the hon. Gentleman was a little disparaging earlier, so I am not exactly too keen to give way to him right now.
	I would like this matter to be considered an awful lot further before any unforeseen pitfalls and unwanted legislation arise. At the moment, I would argue that it appears unseemingly hasty to go down this route. We are Conservatives—I am a Conservative—and we have to protect and conserve our ancient traditions. They are there for a reason, and if we must change them, we should do so reverently and with due consideration.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The problem with this Bill is in the detail—it has not been properly and carefully considered or well thought through. It is, therefore, full of problems.
	We have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre and Preston North (Mr Wallace) about the issues concerning the Duchy of Lancaster, which seemed to take Ministers completely by surprise, as if they had given not a moment’s thought to an ancient title that is with the Crown, but not the Crown. That leads on, as I intervened on him to say, to the question of the Dukedom of Normandy, under which the Crown holds the Channel Islands. Have the Channel Islands been involved in these discussions? They are not mentioned in the list of realms otherwise. Have they brought forward proposals
	to change their feudal overlord—the role that the Duke of Normandy plays—in the Channel Islands? Will the Dukedom of Normandy be subject to clause 1 of the Bill? The same issue applies to the Duchy of Lancaster.
	There is widespread agreement that the Crown should be able to pass through the male and the female lines. It is accepted by many people that—by the virtue of a succession of Acts of Parliament, actually—we have had the good fortune to have a most remarkable selection of Queens as our sovereign. However, it is also worth bearing in mind—there is only a tiny little note on page 5 of the Library research paper to contradict this—that there is, in the ordinary common-law of England, no primogeniture among women. There is a note from a legal textbook which claims that the Crown is different, but I want to know whether that is actually true, because when we look at the succession of female sovereigns, we see that almost all have succeeded by Act of Parliament. Mary I took precedence over Elizabeth I by virtue of Henry VIII’s Third Succession Act of 1543. The Bill of Rights gave Queen Mary precedence over Queen Anne. The Act of Settlement gave the Electress Sophia precedence over her elder sister, Louise, who, in spite of being alive at the time, was ignored altogether in the succession. Victoria was the only claimant. The succession of our own Queen is the only instance in which there has been female primogeniture. At every other time, the succession has been established by law. I do not understand why the Bill does not clarify that point.

Wayne David: My understanding is that there was no legal basis for the present Queen to become Queen. There was an argument that she and her sister should hold the throne jointly, and it was only as a result of a Privy Council decision that common sense dictated that the senior of the two sisters should become the monarch.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The hon. Gentleman makes that point extraordinarily well. This is the time, while we are legislating on the issue, to clarify the order of precedence among sisters. Otherwise, there is a risk that clause 1 will simply provide that the children of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge would be co-heirs to the Crown. The question whether Princess Margaret could have claimed the throne in 1952 is an interesting one. Surely the best time to settle this once and for all is while we are legislating on the matter. We should make it clear that, at least as far as succession to the Crown is concerned, female primogeniture has the same effect as male primogeniture, and that the co-heiress problem that exists in peerages will not apply.
	I think it was Baron Grey of Codnor whose title was in abeyance from the late 15th century until the late 1980s. That is an example of how having co-heiresses in common can lead to an extensive abeyance. Why is that detail ignored in the Bill? It seems to me that the main reasons are the rush to pass the legislation and the failure properly to consider the ramifications of what is being done. That also applies to how dukedoms will pass. Will they pass as ordinary titles, or are they to be deemed to be within the Crown? If they are deemed to be within the Crown, why is that not in the Bill?
	I have already discussed my concerns about clause 2 in relation to Catholics. It is unreasonable of an Act of Parliament to allow a Catholic to do one thing then deny that Catholic the ability to carry out the requirements
	of his faith. That is an illogical position to take, and it will bring out all the anti-Catholic terminology of the Act of Settlement and the Bill of Rights. Many Catholics can live comfortably with that terminology as part of our historical tradition, lost in the mists of time, but when it is brought firmly to our attention this week, it is a matter of the deepest concern. As other hon. Members have said, if a reform is to be made, it should be a thoroughgoing reform.

Chris Bryant: Is it not one of the ironies that clause 2 states that no one should be disqualified from succeeding to the throne through being married to a Catholic, yet clause 3 allows the monarch to exclude someone by refusing to consent to their marriage, potentially to a Roman Catholic?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The hon. Gentleman is making a similar point to mine, which is that there has been a failure to consider the detail of the Bill. Trying to add two further clauses to the major provision that everyone was interested in has created confusion.

Alan Beith: Is it not unreasonable, however, to ask a Roman Catholic to become the supreme governor of the Church of England—the hon. Gentleman obviously recognises that, given his suggestion of a regency—or to conform to the Presbyterian Church when in Scotland?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I agree with my right hon. Friend. It would be perfectly reasonable to leave the law of the land as it is, or to make provision for a regency, which would address the problem. Under the Regency Act 1937, the regent would be required to be a Protestant and would therefore be able to carry out the functions of supreme governor of the Church of England for a period when the Crown was being held by a Catholic.
	Again, however, there are issues with the detail. I raised with the Minister the issue of Counsellors of State. Who is eligible to be a Counsellor of State is set out in the Regency Act 1937. It is usually the closest members of the sovereign’s family, including people who are not of the blood royal, so this includes the late Queen Elizabeth, the Queen mother and the Duke of Edinburgh: they both were or are eligible to be Counsellors of State. Once a Catholic is allowed to marry an heir to the throne, it is perfectly possible for the two Counsellors of State—they always act in pairs—to be Catholics. During a brief incapacity of the Crown or during the Crown’s absence abroad, appointments in the Church of England would have to be made by Roman Catholics, which is a felony under the Catholic Emancipation Act 1829. It seems to me that Her Majesty’s Government are simply not aware of the detail of our constitutional settlement, and have pushed this clause through without considering the detailed ramifications.
	The bit of the Bill for which I have the most sympathy is the clause abolishing the Royal Marriages Act 1772. I intervened earlier to cite a quotation from it that makes it the most nonsensical Act on the statute book since the marriage of Princess Alexandra, as she then was, to the then Prince of Wales. Princess Alexandra and her descendants were exempt under the section I read out earlier to the effect that royal princesses who married foreigners and their heirs were exempted from the Act. The marriage of Princess Louisa, the daughter of George II,
	exempted her line, and through Princess Alexandra our current Queen and all the members of her family are exempted. This Act of Parliament has only affected people for whom it did not really matter who they married and it has not affected the people for whom it did matter who they married.
	It seems slightly eccentric to update this Act in a more aggressive form than the one currently on the statute book. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Christopher Pincher) said, the ability to get an exclusion from Parliament at the age of 25 has been removed, so more onerous legislation has resulted, taking people out of the line of succession rather than simply invalidating the marriage. Provisions have been put in place that are harsher than those of an Act that was completely ineffective against those with whom it was supposed to deal.
	I am not going to vote against Second Reading. I am not going to try to cause a Division against the serried ranks of the establishment. Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition and Her Majesty’s Government line up their forces to push through a Bill of political correctness—not gone mad, but simply not thought through. I wish that when we considered, debated and changed our constitution, we did it with plenty of time, thoughtfulness and detail.
	Pretty much every speech we have heard today has raised an issue that should have been thought about, but has been ignored. Why has it been rushed through? Because it is convenient. Once the two Front-Bench teams are in agreement, the days of the week could be renamed if they felt like doing it. There is nothing so silly as cannot be done by them jointly. That, I am afraid, is what we find with this Bill. Let us hope that when we come to Report—or more likely, perhaps, in the other place—the technicalities and the detail can be gone through, so that we do not find that the Duke of Lancaster ends up being one person and the sovereign another; so that we do not find that the Church of England is accidentally being run for a week by a couple of papists who happen to be Counsellors of State; so that we do not find that an onerous charge is put on royal marriages so that the royals cannot marry when they want—or, indeed, so that the more junior members of the royal family cannot marry at all because if they are not subject to the Royal Marriages Act 1772, they are excluded from ordinary marriage legislation, so how are they going to get married? I really think that it is time to have a look at the detail.

Dan Rogerson: Like several other Members, I had not planned to speak on Second Reading, but then I thought about some of the issues involving the Duchy of Cornwall. Others have referred to the Duchy of Lancaster and, indeed, to the Duchy of Normandy, which I had not considered but which I believe has a separate status, in that it was not created by a monarch but was held by previous monarchs prior to their accession to the throne of England. I was interested when the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) tempted the usual channels to consider creating a new calendar for the country, as Napoleon did during one of his tenures, but I shall not pursue that issue.
	The hon. Members for Caerphilly (Wayne David) and for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) were proud of the Celtic identity of at least two of the houses that have ruled over England and, in one case, Scotland. We have of course been a multicultural nation: Norman French, Welsh, Scots, and people of German descent have reigned over us successively. Perhaps at some time in the future there will be a dynastic war, following which an Anglo-Saxon will reclaim the throne on which Harold last sat.
	I am interested in the religious dimension, which other Members have already explored. On Sunday, after attending mass as a Roman Catholic, I moved to the other side of Bodmin to attend the Anglican christening of my niece. A warm welcome was extended to all of us by the rector of the church of St Petroc, who was keen to inform us that the Norman font had been moved, that it was one of the oldest parts of the church, and that it had escaped the damage done by that great vandal King Henry VIII. I wondered which of the Churches I was delighting in at that point, as the rector seemed so eager to draw attention to something with which I might have been a little more in agreement.
	In principle, I am very happy with the proposal in the Bill to update the rules of succession in line with changes in society so that an eldest female child can inherit the throne. The hon. Member for Caerphilly listed countries that had got there before us. If Hanover had got there before us in the 1830s, the history of western Europe might have been different. Had the kingdom of Hanover still been united with the United Kingdom, it might have had all kinds of influences when it came to the unification of Germany.
	As one who represents a Cornish constituency, however, I am keen to explore issues relating to the Duchy of Cornwall. The hon. Member for Wyre and Preston North (Mr Wallace), who spoke about the Duchy of Lancaster, said that it was his understanding that the Duchy of Cornwall was recreated whenever there was a male heir, but that is not my understanding. My understanding is that it does not disappear and revert to the Crown in its entirety, but is held by the Crown pending the arrival of a future male heir to the throne. The institution of the Duchy is a continuous organisation, which has been keen to assert its rights on a number of occasions throughout history: its right to the foreshore, for instance, and its right to bona vacantia in Cornwall.
	The hon. Member for Wyre and Preston North spoke of the property that is owned. I am not as familiar with the Duchy of Lancaster as he is, but I think that there is a distinction between the rights to property that the Duchy of Cornwall, for example, owns elsewhere in the country as a private estate, and the rights that it has in terms of the territory of Cornwall, which are far deeper. Perhaps at some point I could discuss the issue with the Minister, or, indeed, with my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister.
	Those involved in the tin mining industry in Cornwall had their own Parliament, the Stannary Parliament. It was dissolved in 1753, which is not an incredibly long time ago in constitutional terms. The question of who becomes the Duke of Cornwall is not just financial; it is far more important than that, because it also involves a constitutional issue. The Bill makes it more likely that
	there will be periods without a Duke of Cornwall when the heir to the throne is female. I hope that the Minister or the Deputy Prime Minister will agree to meet me to discuss some of these issues and that prior to such a meeting they might allow me to have access to the translation of the charters that established the Duchy of Cornwall. They might have those to hand and that would allow us to have an interesting exploration into what might be done to deal with these issues as they pertain to the Duchy of Cornwall.

Gerald Howarth: This has been a fantastically interesting debate and I am sorry that there has not been a greater attendance in the House. Let me draw the House’s attention to the following, which the House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution said in 2011:
	“The fundamental nature of our constitution means that it should be changed only with due care and consideration”.
	We have heard this afternoon, particularly from my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), about how little the Government have taken into account the potential unforeseen consequences that could arise from this measure, which has been described by Andrew Roberts in The Daily Telegraph as “blithely fiddling” with the constitution.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames) made an incredibly powerful speech on the importance of the constitution, the Crown and all the traditions, eccentricities and contradictions that are so much part and parcel of 1,000 years of this nation’s history and which we tinker with at our peril. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) rightly made the important point that once we start unpicking the thread, we never know where it is going to end. I am pleased to be able to agree with him on that, if not on everything else. The constitution is incredibly important, which is why we should have more time to debate this measure.
	My second point is that the idea that the European Court of Human Rights should have any say in our deliberations on this matter is so fatuous and offensive that it should be struck out completely—how dare it ever seek to interfere with what we discuss on these matters in this House.
	My third point relates to the question of female succession. I had the privilege of serving as Parliamentary Private Secretary to the greatest Prime Minister since the grandfather of my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex. I refer to the noble Baroness Thatcher, to whom I am utterly and irredeemably devoted. She was the salvation of the nation, and so I cannot argue against the idea that female succession is in the interests of the nation—Margaret Thatcher clearly proved that it is. Our sovereign has also done this country astonishingly good service. I do not believe that any sovereign has so lived up to their coronation oath as Her Majesty the Queen, and this nation is beginning to understand the contribution that she has made to the stability of this nation. That confirms everything that my right hon. Friend said.
	My real problem is with the risk to the established Church that arises from the Bill. I believe that the established Church and the Crown are indissolubly
	linked. We will be allowing the heir to the throne to marry a Catholic and, as my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset has pointed out, under the rules of the Catholic Church the children have to be brought up in the Catholic faith. There would therefore arise a potential conflict of interest in the mind of that person as to which was going to command their loyalty—their loyalty to their faith or their loyalty to the Crown. The issue has not been properly examined, and I support amendment 16, tabled by the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley), which would spell it out and make things crystal clear—it is not anti-Catholic.
	I say to my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) that my mother wrote a book called “A Plain Man’s Guide to the Glorious Revolution, 1688”. It was on sale in this place and it sold many copies. The point my mother always made was about how Catholicism was seen in the 17th century. People were not prejudiced against it; they feared it, because it was seen as owing allegiance beyond these islands. That was why Catholicism represented a threat; it is rather like how some of us see the European Union today or how some of us saw communism in the latter part of the 20th century. To measure the Catholicism of those times against our views today is a mistake; we should put it in its historical context. I salute my hon. Friend and his ancestors for what they did.
	There are serious issues that we need to consider. We need to address the question of what happens if the heir to the throne were to marry a Muslim or a Hindu. What would that do to the United Kingdom?

Daniel Kawczynski: rose—

Gerald Howarth: I will not give way because the Minister needs to wind up the debate.
	All the points made in this House today by my hon. Friends and Members of all parties have illustrated that we should have had much more time to discuss this Bill on the Floor of the House.

Chloe Smith: I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for a most compelling debate that has highlighted the gravity of the changes we are making to the UK’s constitution by removing two pieces of discrimination that must not remain on our statute book. As my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister said when opening the debate, the Bill is in many ways about equality. It turns a page on centuries of discrimination and prejudice on religious and gender grounds in one of our most important institutions—the monarchy.
	It falls to me to respond to a number of the important issues raised. First, I welcome the support shown around the Chamber, including that of the loyal Opposition. I also welcome the range of experience that came through in the comments made, including those of my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mary Macleod), the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), who is no longer in his place, and, of course, my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames). I welcome the passion that has been shown by Members such as the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn), who is also not in his
	place, and my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), even though they were on different sides of the debate. I also welcome the erudition shown by Members such as the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and—need I mention him—my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg).
	Let me begin on the point on which my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) finished: he asked what would happen if an heir to the throne were to marry a Muslim or somebody of any other faith. That is possible today and the Bill should not raise further fears. We should be able to accept, debate and deal with that question in the 21st century.
	I want to start with the implications for the established Church of the changes we have discussed today. I reassure all hon. Members that the changes proposed in the Bill are limited to removing the bar on marriage to a Roman Catholic. I think all Members know that. The Bill does not allow a Roman Catholic to accede to the throne and in no way touches the basis of the established Church. Indeed, the Church of England has made that clear in its own words. I have already quoted the words in the other place of the Bishop of Blackburn, which are helpful to our debate.
	Various points were made about the Church of Scotland that raised some interest across the Chamber. I understand that the Church of Scotland does not define itself as an established Church, but I shall not go further into that debate as I do not have time to do so. I reassure the House, however, that the Church of Scotland, among others, was consulted in the course of our work.
	Various Members raised the possibility of an heir entering into a mixed Anglican and Catholic marriage and discussed what would happen under Roman Catholic canon law. Some feared that that could lead to a constitutional crisis, and I want to reassure them. There is an example of that in the royal family in Lord Frederick and Lady Gabriella Windsor, the son and daughter of Prince Michael of Kent. He married a Catholic, but the children have been brought up in the Anglican communion. I suggest that that is a pragmatic example in the modern monarchy.
	I would not dream of taking on my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset, but I note that various guidance has been published in the intervening years that might provide practical advice.

Therese Coffey: My hon. Friend refers to Princess Michael of Kent. When Prince and Princess Michael married in 1978, they did not marry in a Catholic church. That was corrected five years later, after her children had been born.

Chloe Smith: I thank my hon. Friend for clarifying that point for the edification of our colleagues, but I do not see how that detracts from the main point that it has been possible to take a pragmatic view of how the modern monarchy must function. We have already spoken about the relevant guidance, which suggests that one should do one’s best to have the children raised as Catholics but that there could be just and reasonable cause for not doing so. The protection of the place of the established Church is a rather large cause and some colleagues mentioned that. The Church of England, as I have said, has made it clear that the requirement to join communion with the Church of England is not
	affected by the Bill. The Archbishop of Westminster has confirmed that he recognises the importance of the position of the established Church in protecting and fostering faith in our society.

Daniel Kawczynski: I have listened carefully to the concerns expressed by my hon. Friends, but it is important in this day and age to remove specific reference to Roman Catholics. As the Deputy Prime Minister said, we spend a great deal of time making sure that minority groups do not suffer discrimination, and as a Roman Catholic I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to pursue this matter as speedily as possible. It is rather insulting for Catholics to be in this position—not that I am going to marry a member of the royal family or anything.

Chloe Smith: I wish my hon. Friend luck in that last endeavour. I thank him for his comments, which demonstrate the breadth of views that have been expressed this afternoon.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex asked whether the legislation would make it more likely that we will have a Catholic monarch. No, it does not. It makes it more likely that the heir to the throne may marry a Catholic—that is what the legislation does—but the bar remains on the sovereign being a Roman Catholic. There is no more need for a constitutional crisis now than there was before, as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot.
	I should like to deal with the point that has been raised a couple of times about, shall we say, the human misery of having to choose between one’s faith and the throne. Let us not forget that there is a particular piece of misery already available under the existing constitutional arrangements, which is not being able to marry the person you love. It is important to note that that is already available to anyone who wishes that particular form of difficulty. It is evident to everyone in the country that the huge public popularity of the wedding of certain members of the family in recent years shows that members of a modern monarchy do and can marry for love, and we ought to consider that as we discuss the tensions that that family may feel.

Chris Bryant: rose—

Chloe Smith: I am terribly sorry. The hon. Gentleman has had plenty of chances to speak, and doubtless there will be more in Committee.
	The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) wondered whether a female heir would be styled “the Princess of Wales”. The granting of royal titles is a matter for the sovereign, and it is not within the scope of the Bill. He made various points about the Duchy of Cornwall not passing to a female heir. Again, as a matter of title, that is a matter for the sovereign. I would be happy to meet my hon. Friends the Members for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson) and for Wyre and Preston North (Mr Wallace) to discuss the points that they made.
	I turn to the issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset. He began by raising something that is touched on in amendments which have not been
	selected for debate: the issue of two daughters and the clarity of succession. We are confident that it is clear, having regard to the succession to the Crown in 1952, that when a monarch dies the eldest daughter, if there are two, would succeed. We believe that there is no need to make statutory provision to address that. I am grateful for the points that my hon. Friend made about the Counsellors of State, who are the spouse of the monarch and the next four individuals in the line of succession, except where they are disqualified by virtue of being Roman Catholic. I thank my hon. Friend for the breadth of ground covered by his other points; we may have a chance to return to that.
	Turning to retrospective measures, my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Christopher Pincher) suggested that clause 2 ought not to apply retrospectively. We are dealing with the need to respect realistic changes to the legitimate expectations of those closest to the throne, so there are differences in what clauses 1 and 2 do. We may come on to that in Committee. The hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) argued that in this day and age there was no need for anyone to seek the sovereign’s consent to marry. I remind him that it may well be in the public interest that consent should be given for the marriage of someone who may become our Head of State. Other European countries, such as Norway, Sweden, Spain and the Netherlands, require such consent.
	Other points raised included whether the requirement of consent to the first six in line to the throne ought to apply to all descendants of Queen Elizabeth II. One factual answer is that the line of succession in recent history has rarely gone beyond six. A more amusing answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth, if he will allow me, is that his ambition is not high enough if he does not aim to become Father of the House in 200 or 300 years’ time to be here to see that problem repeat itself should all the descendants of Queen Elizabeth II be allowed—

Wayne David: rose—

Chloe Smith: I am afraid that I am about to run out of time. It remains for me to deal with the point from the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) about children who are adopted or born as a result of donor eggs. I can clarify that it is only the children of a husband and wife who are entitled to succeed, not adopted children or those born from artificial insemination.
	I commend the Bill to the House—

Wayne David: I thank the Minister for her response. May I press her on the issue of the figure of six? Can she give a slightly more detailed explanation, rather than saying, as the Deputy Prime Minister said, that that was a pragmatic decision or that there was some historical precedent? Can she be more specific and—
	Four hours having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings on the allocation of time motion, the Deputy Speaker put the Question (Order, this day).
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read a Second time; to stand committed to a Committee of the whole House (Order, this day).

Succession to the Crown Bill

Considered in Committee (Order, this day)

[Mr Lindsay Hoyle in the Chair]

Clause 1
	 — 
	Succession to the Crown not to depend on gender

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Chloe Smith: The purpose of the Bill has been well explained in the debate on the allocation of time motion and on Second Reading. Clause 1 simply removes male bias primogeniture in the succession to the throne.

Chris Bryant: On a point of order, Mr Hoyle. My hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) is not present to move the amendment that he tabled to clause 1. I think that is because when the Speaker announced the amendments that had been selected, he referred only to the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) to the allocation of time motion.

Lindsay Hoyle: For clarification, rather than on a point of order, the amendment appears on the selection list.

Wayne David: I support the motion that the clause stand part of the Bill.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2
	 — 
	Removal of disqualification arising from marriage to a Roman Catholic

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I beg to move amendment 4, page 1, line 9, after ‘person’, insert
	‘who married a person of the Roman Catholic faith’.
	Thank you for calling me to speak, Mr Deputy Speaker—I am sorry, Mr Hoyle. I will get it right in the end. It is so difficult when people have so many titles, like Her Majesty. It causes confusion, even for those of us who try to specialise in such important aspects.
	My amendment is a minor one that is intended to clarify which person clause 2(2) refers to, because we do not want to refer to the wrong person. The amendment refers to a person
	“who married a person of the Roman Catholic faith”,
	because I am concerned that the part of clause 2(2) that reads,
	“where the person concerned is alive”,
	could be taken to mean not the person who married the Catholic, but the person who was the subject of that marriage, or indeed the person who was its product.

Angus MacNeil: It occurs to me that, together with the need to style Queen Elizabeth as Queen Elizabeth II, the obsession with whether or not the monarch is Catholic only really applies in England—it does not seem to apply to Wales or Scotland, and it certainly does not apply to the other realms. It is so important at the moment because the monarchy resides within England, which colours or clouds the rest of the debate. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman agrees.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: That is an interesting point. I am sure that Her Majesty’s other realms will consider whether or not the whole of clause 2 is a matter of great concern to them, because Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the other realms do not have established Churches and so need not worry whether or not the sovereign is married to a Catholic. I accept the hon. Gentleman’s point that it is essentially a matter of concern in so far as Her Majesty is the Queen of England, rather than Queen of the other territories.
	My amendment is very narrow. Clause 2(2) reads as follows:
	“Subsection (1) applies in relation to marriages occurring before the time of the coming into force of this section where the person concerned is alive at that time”.
	Who does that mean? It could mean a person who was excluded from the succession many years ago as a result of marrying a Catholic and who happens to be alive at the time the Act comes into force. Therefore, we might find that we will need to rearrange the whole succession because the clause is not clear about who that person is. I think that the Government’s intention is that that is the person who contracted the marriage to a Catholic. To put a name to it, we are talking about someone such as His Royal Highness Prince Michael of Kent.

Angus MacNeil: Once it has been established who is first, second and third in line to the throne, the line of succession is in many ways academic. I am sure that whoever was 10th or 20th in line was not considered much in the time of Robert the Bruce, Edward I or whoever happened to be the monarch in these islands at the time. It is purely an academic matter to be discussed at many dinner tables across the land. I wonder what the hon. Gentleman’s opinion is.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: That is an interesting thought, but I think that it is important that the line of succession should be clear and in no doubt. I think that legislation relating to the succession to the Crown needs to be unambiguous and not allow potential risks to come in because of a mistake in the drafting. We want to know who our sovereign will be, to whom we owe loyalty and all such things, and that might not be possible if we do not know the line of succession.
	It is also worth bearing in mind that the succession can leap about. We have been fortunate enough in recent generations to have had a very clear succession and large royal families, but we can sometimes get down to a very small number of heirs, and we see that ordinary hereditary titles can sometimes go to very remote cousins, so who is in line to the throne is very important.
	Obviously, there are other amendments that I have tabled. I have concerns about the clause as a whole and whether it should stand part of the Bill—

Peter Bone: Order. I remind the Committee that we are dealing only with the narrow amendment that is being moved at the moment.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Thank you for that guidance, Mr Bone. That is the amendment I am moving. It is intended to be helpful and clarifying. Were it to be sent to the other realms in which Her Majesty is sovereign, I would have thought that they would not find it unduly objectionable. Therefore, I bring it to the Government’s attention and hope that they will consider it carefully.

Chloe Smith: Once again, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), who through the amendment seeks to make the intention behind clause 2 crystal clear. Clause 2(1) stops a person being disqualified from succeeding to the Crown or being the monarch because of marriage to a Roman Catholic. The amendment would add words to subsection (2) so that it read slightly differently.
	My hon. Friend is trying to make crystal clear that the person referred to in subsection (2) is also the person referred to in subsection (1), who would not be disqualified as a result of having married a Roman Catholic. I sincerely thank him for his amendment.
	The Government’s view is that the clarification is not required. We believe that the clause is clear as it stands. For the benefit of the record, I should say that the person referred to in subsection (2) is the person who should not be disqualified from succeeding to the Crown or from possessing it as a result of their marriage to a Roman Catholic. I suggest that the amendment is unnecessary, although I am grateful for the intention behind it. I invite my hon. Friend to withdraw it.

Wayne David: I very much agree with the Minister’s interpretation; that is my understanding as well. It is important to stress that the intention is made clear not only in the words of subsections (1) and (2) but in the clause heading. I suggest that the amendment is otiose.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Having listened to the Minister, I would not wish to divide the House given the limited time available. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Chloe Smith: I am grateful to be able to spend a little more time on this stand part debate than on the first; it is clear that the majority of this afternoon’s debate has focused on clause 2.
	Clause 2 provides for a major change to the laws of succession to the Crown agreed by the Commonwealth Heads of Government in Perth in 2011. It removes the bar on anyone who marries a Roman Catholic from becoming monarch; that is the purpose of subsection (1). Subsection (2) applies the change retrospectively to anyone who is currently in the line of succession. That means that people who have lost their place in the line of succession because of their marriage to a Roman Catholic will regain their place. Further to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth
	(Christopher Pincher), I should say that that will not affect anybody who is particularly high up in the line of succession.
	Some have suggested that the change could bring into question the position of the established Church of England. We have discussed that issue extensively on Second Reading and in Committee. I give again my full reassurance that the change has no implications for the position of the established Church or for the monarch as the head of the Church of England, because there are no changes to the part of the Act of Settlement that requires the monarch to be a Protestant. I note the interest of some in the Chamber in that point and I re-emphasise it here in Committee. All the clause will do is remove a specifically anti-Catholic provision that bars a person from succeeding to the Crown or possessing it if they are married to a Catholic. As I said, it is worth remembering that there is no bar on the heir to the throne marrying anybody else.

Chris Bryant: I want to clarify the point that I have asked about twice and that no Minister has replied to. Clause 2 says that someone who marries a Roman Catholic can succeed to the Crown, but clause 3 allows the monarch to remove somebody from the succession by refusing to consent to their marriage. As no reason has to be given why consent is not provided, it could be because the person is Roman Catholic, could it not?

Chloe Smith: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman asked that question again because there was unfortunately little time to answer it in detail when winding up the Second Reading debate. It might be worth looking back at some precedents. The point about whether, under clause 3, the monarch would be advised by Ministers was also raised on Second Reading. I hope you will forgive me, Mr Bone, if I deal a little with clause 3 in this debate. In 1967, when there was a question about the marriage—in that case, marriage following a divorce—of a member of the royal family, the then Prime Minister, Harold Wilson, devised a formula that ran along these lines: “The Cabinet has advised the Queen to give her consent and Her Majesty has signified her intention to do so.” That provides an insight into how such advice to the monarch might operate. We have had many debates, connected to this topic and more widely in the media, about advice to and from the monarch and the publication of such correspondence, and I will not stray on to that territory now. However, it should be perfectly reasonable and practical to imagine that there would be such advice to the monarch.
	The hon. Gentleman asks specifically whether that would include withholding consent to marriage because the person is a Catholic. I will not answer that today because, for a range of reasons, there should be space within such advice with regard to consent. As I explained at the end of Second Reading, it is not unreasonable to have the notion of consent to marriage. After all, we are dealing with those who may become Head of State in due course, so there is a matter of public interest. I hope that that begins to provide an answer to the hon. Gentleman.

Angus MacNeil: If I recall correctly, the Minister mentioned the monarch being Protestant. Does she mean Church of England, or could the monarch be a member of any other Protestant Church?

Chloe Smith: I beg your pardon, Mr Bone, if I have been lax in my words. I do not recall saying that, but if I did, I should have said Church of England, because, as we have been discussing, the monarch is in communion with the Church of England. However, it is also the case that we have a Protestant succession in this country.

Mark Reckless: The Minister suggested that under clause 3(1) consent could be refused for a variety of reasons, but does not clause 2(1) limit the prerogative such that a refusal of consent as a result of marriage to a person of the Roman Catholic faith would be unlawful?

Chloe Smith: Mr Bone, I hope you will forgive me if I stray too far into clause 3—

Peter Bone: Order. I am grateful to the Minister, because that is exactly my opinion. We will have a chance to debate clause 3, so perhaps we could stick to clause 2 for the moment.

Chloe Smith: Clause 2 is extremely clear that the monarch may not be a Roman Catholic. I think that that is the simplest expression of the lawfulness entailed in the clause.

Alan Beith: It will not be clear if confusion persists over the matter of Protestant or Church of England. For example, Prince Albert was a Lutheran when he married Queen Victoria; he was a Protestant, not a Catholic. The Hanoverians were Lutherans when they came to the throne. We have a Protestant succession but it also involves supreme governorship of the Church of England.

Chloe Smith: Again, I am grateful for the chance to be extremely clear. There are no changes to the parts of the Act of Settlement that require the monarch to be a Protestant. I hope that that is sufficiently clear.

Chris Bryant: But in addition, the monarch has to be in communion with the Church of England. That is very clear in section 3 of the Act of Settlement.

Chloe Smith: There are many, many sections of the Act of Settlement that we are not dealing with today, and I suspect that that is one of them.
	Clause 2 removes a specifically anti-Catholic provision that bars a person from succeeding to the throne or possessing it if they are married to a Catholic.

Mark Durkan: I think that the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) was trying to draw the Minister’s attention to the provisions in clause 2(1) and suggesting that that might answer the question asked by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). It states:
	“A person is not disqualified from succeeding to the Crown or from possessing it as a result of marrying a person of the Roman Catholic faith.”
	That, of itself, would not preclude Her Majesty from refusing a marriage on the grounds of somebody being a Roman Catholic. The hon. Member for Rochester and Strood seemed to suggest that that answers the question asked by the hon. Member for Rhondda. Does it?

Chloe Smith: Again, I suspect that we will have to address that when we discuss clause 3 and are able to go into more detail as to what it does or does not permit. As I told the hon. Member for Rhondda, I am not willing to go through a list of the rules that might be applied to the monarch’s consent. I do not believe that that has been done in matters of tradition before when consent has been sought, but that is a matter for clause 3. Clause 2 is absolutely clear about lifting the bar on marrying a Roman Catholic but, as I have said, it does not change the parts of the Act of Settlement that require the monarch to be a Protestant and in communion with the Church of England.

Ian Paisley Jnr: The more I listen to the Minister today, the more I realise that she has been at pains to emphasise and explain the point that I have made in amendment 16. I have also received reassurances from her verbally and from the Library’s paperwork. That is why I believe my amendment makes eminent sense, because it says exactly what the Minister has said at the Dispatch Box—

Peter Bone: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but because his amendment has not been selected, we cannot debate it.

Ian Paisley Jnr: The point that I had hoped to make without making you cross with me, Mr Bone, is that the Minister could take the issue away—or perhaps get something from the House of Lords—and then bring back an amended Bill to the House next week. There is clarity in my amendment—“provided that person remains in communion with the Church of England in accordance with section 3 of the Act of Settlement”— and if the Minister were prepared to accept that, the matter would be resolved. It would clear up a lot of the confusion that has been voiced today, and the Bill would then have intent, thrust and clarity.

Alan Beith: I am glad to be under your chairmanship, Mr Bone, as we discuss the details of this provision. Clause 2 is an important clause, but it raises complications and difficulties, to which hon. Members of all parties have been right to draw attention in order to check whether we are getting this right and achieving the objective.
	We are in a different world from that in which the legislation that the Bill will change was created. As hon. Members have said, that was a time when Catholicism represented an actual political threat to the United Kingdom, because of the behaviour of some Catholic powers in Europe. We are long past that era now—indeed, we are in an era in which Catholics and Protestants are aware that they have more things in common—some very important things in common—than they have matters of difference, and an era in which there are many mixed marriages between Catholics and Protestants. We should recognise that people find ways of accommodating and even sharing in the benefits of both approaches to the Christian faith.
	A further fact that we cannot simply cast aside is that we have a long national tradition associated with a Protestant monarchy and an established Protestant Church in England—the Church of England—which has its own long and complex history, including its own Catholic
	elements. We have a long-established situation in Scotland, dating from the Union of the Crowns, whereby the monarch is expected to uphold the position of a national Presbyterian Church in Scotland and to conform to it and attend its services when in Scotland. It is also the case that Protestantism is a resonant feature of life in Wales and Northern Ireland, as, indeed, is Catholicism in both places. All that is part of our history and we cannot throw it lightly aside.

Angus MacNeil: The right hon. Gentleman touches on the past. It strikes me that perhaps the great worry in the past was not theological as much as it was about the imperialist ambitions of neighbouring nations—France, probably, and Spain to an extent.

Alan Beith: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that that is at the root of the bars and prohibitions that we are discussing now. There were of course strongly felt theological differences, and there was a time when to be a Member of this House, a person had to swear an oath against transubstantiation and the Pope’s ability to relieve them of any obligations resulting from falsely swearing such an oath. It was very stringent. Later, and rightly, it was changed.
	The hon. Gentleman comes from an island with an extraordinary and honourable tradition of adherence to the Roman Catholic faith, without a break, since before the Reformation. It is an unusual part of the British isles in that respect. Where he lives. there has always been diversity in these matters.

Angus MacNeil: The right hon. Gentleman mentions the geography and history of my constituency, and he is correct that the island that I happen to be from has that Catholic tradition associated with it. The recent census showed that the southern part of the Hebrides had the most Catholic areas in Scotland, but also that the most Protestant areas in Scotland were in my constituency, in Lewis, Harris and North Uist in the northern isles. It is interesting to note that there has never been any religious tension between the two at all.

Alan Beith: The two versions of Christianity live side by side remarkably happily in the Western Isles.
	The purpose of the Bill is not to change the Protestant succession, as the Minister has made clear. If it were, we would have to spend a lot longer on it considering many more detailed and complicated clauses, and there would be many more concerns to deal with. Nor will it disestablish the Church of England—it retains the monarch’s position as Supreme Governor of the Church of England—or change the situation in Scotland, where the monarch will continue to be expected to be a loyal supporter of the Church of Scotland and its work, as the Queen notably is, while having good relations with the other religious communities in Scotland.
	The problem that arises is the one that I refer to as the early age problem. A decision to bring up a child of such a marriage as a Roman Catholic, whether taken entirely voluntarily or under the provisions of some Roman Catholic law, would result in that child being debarred from taking up the Crown unless they renounced
	the faith in which they had been brought up. That is perfectly possible, as was mentioned earlier, but it is quite a limitation to place upon a child.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The Act of Settlement mentions
	“all and every Person and Persons that then were or afterwards should be reconciled to or shall hold Communion with the See or Church of Rome”,
	so if a child were baptised a Catholic, I do not think there would be any subsequent opportunity for them to abandon Catholicism. The decision would be that of their parents at the time of their birth.

Alan Beith: That is an interesting argument but I am not persuaded by it in the first instance. It seems to me that it has always been possible for a person to renounce the religion in which they were brought up. It had not previously occurred to me that the way in which we currently define the position would invalidate such a renunciation as removing a barrier to taking up the Crown.

Dan Rogerson: My right hon. Friend has hit on the spirit in which the law would probably be interpreted now. At some point, long before the Acts to which Members have referred today were passed, no members of the Church of England would have been able to escape that position, as they would all originally have been baptised Roman Catholics.

Alan Beith: That is a further interesting point. The problem is there and we should not ignore it, and I think any wise parents would have to consider it. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister will have had to consider it when he married. I would expect a couple from the royal family to exercise a lot of care and wisdom in making such a decision. However, we have to recognise that we are placing a potentially serious limitation on the children of a marriage such as we are considering, and giving their parents quite a dilemma to face.

Chris Bryant: May I draw the right hon. Gentleman away from the point about baptism? There is no such thing as Roman Catholic baptism or Anglican baptism: there is Christian baptism. No Church has ever suggested that there should be a rebaptism when somebody changes their religious denomination. The right hon. Gentleman makes a fair point about the bringing up of children, but it does not apply to baptism.

Alan Beith: Absolutely, and had I decided to spend more time dealing with the argument put by the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), I would have looked into other questions such the significance of first communion at the age of eight or nine, for example, and whether someone would subsequently be allowed to renounce it. Most parents would prefer that such a position was not reached, but I refer to it because it is a real problem. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) raised another intriguing issue that could be the subject of an amendment to the Bill, although one that I think the Government might resist on the grounds that it would limit the powers of the sovereign in a family matter—it is a rather unique family situation. Most of us would like to have some influence over the choice of our children’s spouses,
	and some may feel that they have less influence than they would like, at least in the initial choice of boyfriend or girlfriend or whatever, but the royal family is in a special situation and I think it would be reasonable of the Government to resist fettering the sovereign’s ability to exercise the six-person limitation provided for in the Bill. I understand why they might want to do so.

Paul Flynn: In imposing this archaic rule and virtually choosing partners for people, which we would denounce in every other field, and in putting the emphasis on religion, when we know that half the population has no religion—

Peter Bone: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. I know that clauses 2 and 3 are closely linked, but we are shifting quickly into clause 3. The sooner we finish with the clause 2 stand part debate, the sooner we will get to clause 3.

Alan Beith: I do not want to be drawn into clause 3. We are considering whether the effect of clause 2 might be undermined by clause 3, and that has much to do with clause 2, but I suspect—I do not intend to say this again when we debate clause 3, so I will say it now —that it is something we will have to live with in order to produce a sensible outcome. The Bill as it stands provides a reasonable outcome to the problems I have described, but there is no escaping the fact that some problems will remain.

Mark Durkan: I want to take up the Minister’s point that this clause removes a line of discrimination from law. That is clearly what it does—up to a point. It removes a blatant bit of sectarian discrimination that would prevent somebody remaining in the line of succession if they married a Roman Catholic. However, as we have heard, it still requires us all to subscribe to the notion that the Crown must remain Protestant and that somebody can only be head of state in the United Kingdom on the basis of one particular faith. That is a sectarian provision.

Angus MacNeil: For clarity, it is more than the Crown must remain Protestant; the Crown must remain Church of England. If we are talking about the personality of the monarch’s faith, surely when the monarch crosses a border or moves across the sea, his or her religion does not change.

Mark Durkan: Well in some respects, as I understand from the current debate, the sovereign’s religion does change when they cross a border. The Church with which they are deemed to be in communion changes when the sovereign crosses the border from the Church of England to the Church of Scotland, not the Episcopal Church in Scotland. That is just from listening to this debate. We are getting into areas that I know little about and do not particularly want to know a lot about. Some of this debate reminds me of the old advert for Baxters soup: “The difference is in the thickness.”
	Yes, obviously there is an emphasis on communion with the Church of England because of the role of the Crown and the governorship of that Church, but there is also the Protestant line of succession, as the Minister has said.

Angus MacNeil: I will try not to be too thick about this. Given what the hon. Gentleman has said, would he be happier if the terms were “must be Church of England” rather than “cannot be a Catholic”? To put a political dimension on the matter, as a Scottish nationalist and a monarchist, I would be quite happy to share a monarchy with England if the monarch had to be Church of England. That would be no problem for me.

Mark Durkan: As a Scottish nationalist, the hon. Gentleman speaks for himself on that. As an Irish nationalist, I have a different view on a number of his points.
	In the part of the world I represent, I clearly say to people, “There is no acceptable level of sectarianism in our streets,” but the message from the Committee is that there is an acceptable level of sectarianism in our statutes. We are removing the bar on someone who marries a Catholic from succeeding to the throne, but we are not removing the grossly arcane and offensive language that remains on the statute book. We are saying, “That’s okay.” We have statements from the different Churches that have been consulted that they are just about okay with the compromise, but I am not comfortable with such received sectarianism.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Does the hon. Gentleman share my view that, by amending the statutes, we are saying that all the provisions are modernised, and that the Act of Settlement and all its anti-Catholic provisions are acceptable in a modern world with a few words changed? Does he share my view that that is offensive to Her Majesty’s loyal Catholic subjects and possibly more offensive to republicans?

Mark Durkan: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point, which reinforces exactly the one I am making. The Committee will take a deliberate decision to amend only the legislation it needs to amend, and will not take the opportunity to do away with the offensive, discriminatory and provocative language. Such language will remain on the statute books—the language of the law of the land—which is offensive. Why would the Committee take a decision at this point in the 21st century not to make laws of our time and for the future?
	To my mind, it is not acceptable for people to be satisfied by such received sectarianism, and it is a matter of sadness that it remains. That is my difficulty with clause 2. I welcome the fact that it makes a difference, but I have a fundamental problem with the fact that it says, “Everything else can stay the same. That’s okay. We’re happy with that sort of language.” We should be repulsed by the language that the Committee says should stay on the statute book.

Gerald Howarth: I am delighted to take part in Committee under your tutelage, Mr Bone, and to follow the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) and other hon. Members. There is a paradox in the situation in which we find ourselves. The Government are seeking to end part of a discriminatory law, and yet have resurrected rather a lot of hurt, as expressed by the hon. Member for Foyle and my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg). Perpetuating this debate could lead to further hurt.
	As an Anglican on the Anglo-Catholic wing of the Church of England, the last thing I seek to do is to offend those in the Catholic Church, but I should tell my hon. Friend that he might at least allow us to take communion when we attend his Church. When he attends ours, he is allowed to take communion with us. Perhaps that little bit of discrimination could be ended by the Catholic Church.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Gerald Howarth: If my hon. Friend has been able to get a tweet from the Vatican to indicate a change in policy, I would be delighted to give way to him.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: rose—

Peter Bone: Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman’s intervention will be very concise and to do with clause 2.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: It is incredibly concise and relevant to clause 2. My simple point is that the matter to which my hon. Friend refers is one for the Papacy. I do not have the authority to do as he asks.

Gerald Howarth: I am sure the day will come when such authority is conferred by the Vatican upon my hon. Friend, such is the power of his language.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) made the point that the two Churches are coming together, and that Christian Churches generally are doing so. That is imperative, particularly given the rise of Islamic fundamentalism not just around the world, but in our country. The issue of succession and religion—which is what clause 2 is all about—is very significant. I welcome the fact that the Minister has put it on the record that section 3 of the Act of Settlement 1700 will remain firmly part of the law of this land. While an heir to the throne may be entitled to marry a Catholic, no one who is not in communion with the Church of England shall be sovereign of this country. It is important that that is stated, and I am grateful to the Minister. The reason I was prepared to support the additional confirmation of that by the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) was that one is so aware of the zeal with which the present Administration prosecutes its enthusiasm for modernisation that one does not want this to be subject to any form of modernisation. It is imperative that that is clear, and it has been made clear.
	I will repeat the point I made on Second Reading as I had to make it in a rather curtailed style. If the heir to the throne were to marry a Catholic, the Catholic ordinances had not changed and the children were to be brought up in the Catholic faith—the point made by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed—those children would face a decision on whether to be loyal to the Catholic faith or to renounce it, and subscribe to being in communion with the Church of England. Therefore, clause 2 does have consequences, and this is not a question of semantics between the Church of England and the Catholic Church.
	It is important to all Christians that the sovereign remains, as every coin of the realm testifies, the defender of the faith. I wonder how many children in our schools are taught that. If we put our hands in our pockets and look at our coins, we see the two letters “FD”, which stand for fidei defensor: defender of the faith, the Christian faith. All of us, whether we are Catholic, Congregationalist, Church of England, Baptist or whatever, have a huge interest in ensuring that the Christian faith remains at the heart of this nation, for it is that faith that has formed this nation. It is that faith that has given birth to the enthusiasm for liberty that has attracted so many people of other faiths to come to this country. While the hon. Member for Foyle may find this difficult—I salute the spirit with which he promoted his case—I do not believe it right to be anything other than uncompromising. This House—this Parliament—is governed by the values of the Christian Church and faith. It is therefore imperative that we are crystal clear.

Paul Flynn: In the hon. Gentleman’s hyperbole about the religious nature of the country, does he recall that the majority of people describe themselves as atheists, and that the number of those who describe themselves as adherents to the Church of England is 19%? That figure is dropping and the number who describe themselves as atheist is increasing. Has he not got a rather romantic view of society, and are we not legislating for the past, not the future?

Gerald Howarth: I think the latest figures show that 60% of the country are adherents to the Christian faith. I do not know if I have a romantic view or not, but what I do know is that this nation, which has become a magnet for people from all over the world, has been forged and fashioned by the Christian faith.
	It is a matter of deep concern to me that the leadership of my Church is completely consumed by other matters—in particular, homosexuality and women bishops—at a time when this nation is crying out for spiritual leadership, so I make no apologies for stating what I have. That is why there is more to this measure than there might appear to be on the face of it. It is also why it is important that Parliament should be able to consider clause 2 in detail—because I think it goes deep into the heart of this nation.
	We are not faced with a decision today, next week or next year, because as yet there is no successor to the son of the heir to the throne. We are therefore talking about something that is a long way off. Nevertheless, it is right that Parliament should debate these matters and be absolutely clear in the laws we pass and not leave them to the courts. It is wrong for the Opposition spokesman to assert that the clause heading is clear, because I think I am right in saying that the courts do not take into account the headings of clauses. I am sorry to be a bit pedantic, but that which the courts take into account is solely that which is in the text of the legislation.

Ian Paisley Jnr: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, as he allows me to point out that the 2011 census found that there were only 29,000 atheists in England and Wales, compared with 33.2 million who said they were Christian. That is why, once again, this point should be emphasised in our legislation, and why we should make it boldly and unashamedly.

Gerald Howarth: I am happy to make common cause with the hon. Gentleman in that endeavour. I entirely agree with him and that is why I have sought to use this opportunity to express my views. To reiterate, I am an active member of the Church of England—I am a church warden of the Royal Garrison church in Aldershot and proud of being so—and I am hugely concerned. I fear that, as my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset expressed so eloquently, this legislation will lead to all sorts of intricacies that have not been foreseen, and I am afraid that this issue is one of them.
	I will conclude on a positive note. I again thank the Minister for putting it profoundly on the record that section 3 of the Act of Settlement 1700 remains firmly and centrally part of the law of this land.

Chris Bryant: It is a great delight to follow the hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth); it is only a shame that he is speaking from the Back Benches. It was rather nice when he was speaking from the Front Bench. They culled the wrong Minister in the Ministry of Defence, I thought. It is good to follow him also because he is a church warden and he will know that church warden was one of the first posts that women could be elected to in this country, long before they could be elected as MPs.
	The hon. Gentleman was absolutely right on one point, which is that, in a sense, clause 2 opens a wound, but stitches up only part of it. The wound is actually much bigger. The provisions in the Act of Settlement and the Bill of Rights on Catholicism—only a tiny bit of which we are amending—are not only offensive, but meant to be offensive. They were deliberately intended as offensive legislation, to try to slap Catholicism on the face and send it flying. I know that the Minister wants to restrict things as much as possible and make this a tidy little Bill; none the less, the truth is that at some point we will have to get rid of all these provisions.

Wayne David: I understand what my hon. Friend is saying, but does he accept that it is not valid to argue that because we cannot change everything we might not like, we can change nothing?

Chris Bryant: Yes, and that is why I allowed Second Reading to go through, and I will—[Interruption.] Sorry, I meant that I added my assent to everybody else’s. I want clause 2 to remain in the Bill, but it points to the issue—to which hon. Members have referred—of the bringing up of children. Baptism was referred to earlier. At what point does one decide that somebody has been in communion with or reconciled to the See or the Church of Rome? Somebody suggested the point of baptism, but I do not think that that is categorical. As I tried to suggest earlier, baptism is not Catholic or Anglican—it is Christian. However, many children growing up in a Catholic family or being brought up by Catholic parents will be expected to take their first communion when they are quite young. I would have thought that, at that point, they were in communion with Rome.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: When looking at the Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement, we must bear in mind the particular concern of the people passing that law at that
	time to exclude James II’s newly born son. The wording is therefore quite all-encompassing in its aim to exclude a child from the first moment of Catholicism infecting it, so to speak, rather than thinking that a child could be brought up as a Catholic and decide at 21 not to be one any more. The terminology is
	“reconciled to or shall hold Communion with the See or Church of Rome”—

Peter Bone: Order. The hon. Gentleman is supposed to be making an intervention. This sounds rather like a speech.

Chris Bryant: It was a very good intervention, though, Mr Bone. I think you are being a bit mean this afternoon.
	The hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) is absolutely right. That is the problem with the clause. I want the clause to go through, but I think it will provide us with long-term problems because it will change the point at which we consider someone to have become reconciled to, or to be in communion with, the Catholic Church. A Catholic can be in communion with the Church of England, as the hon. Member for Aldershot said, because we accept anyone who is in good standing with their own Church into communion with the Church of England. The same does not apply the other way round, however. This is where the issue of bringing up children comes in.

Kevin Brennan: Those of us who are brought up as Catholics are also often confirmed in the Catholic faith at quite a young age. What is my hon. Friend’s understanding of the point at which a child’s Catholicism would become a problem? Could that problem be overcome simply by taking the oath of accession?

Chris Bryant: That is really a question for the Minister. There is a real question about pulling at one thread in the jumper. Are we undermining other aspects of the present settlement, and will we therefore need a whole new settlement? That is what I think will need to happen in the next 10 to 15 years. Charles II changed his religion on his deathbed; he became a Catholic. If he had then lived, people might have wanted to exclude him from the throne, just as they went on to remove James II.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: rose—

Chris Bryant: I can see the hon. Member for North East Somerset stirring his loins.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that the mother of Charles II and James II was a Catholic? That was in many ways the start of the problem.

Chris Bryant: The hon. Gentleman might say that that was the start of the problem, but I think it is fine to have a Catholic mother. I did not have one myself, but some of my best friends are Catholic mothers. I do not see this in quite the same light. The point is that the bringing up of children leads to the nub of the problem.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am sorry that my earlier intervention seemed like a speech, Mr Bone, but these are technically complex issues and one sometimes gets a bit more long-winded than one had intended.
	During the debate, a number of hon. Members have asked about the specific requirement. I know, because I tabled an amendment on the matter that was not selected, that the Act of Settlement states that
	“whosoever shall hereafter come to the Possession of this Crown shall joyn in Communion with the Church of England as by Law established.”
	So it does refer to the Church of England and not simply to the Protestant Church.
	I also want to return to the point made by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) about the age of the child being a Catholic. I think that the earliest age is relevant, because the Act of Settlement goes on to say that
	“the said Person or Persons so reconciled holding Communion professing or marrying as aforesaid were naturally dead.”
	The succession would pass as though they had died. I know that Christianity is all about the resurrection, but I do not think that statute law is. If a child of a marriage were christened and brought up a Catholic, that child would be deemed “naturally dead” under the Act of Settlement in relation to succession to the Crown. That is why the clause is, I think, so complex, without any further amendment. My view is that it would be better to leave well alone. I am in entire agreement with my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth), who looks as if he wants to intervene.

Gerald Howarth: I wonder whether there is any way in which the Catholic Church might compromise, as it were, accepting that although the child could be brought up in the Catholic faith, in the event of being in line for the throne the child would not be expected to do other than renounce the Catholic faith and accept the Church of England.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Yes, of course that would possible. A papal indult could be granted, but when I suggested that earlier, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) thought that that would not do at all, and that having our succession subject to the papacy would create difficulties of its own. I see the validity of that point. My concern is that by introducing clause 2, we will be passing into law something that brings our law into direct contradiction of the requirements of the Catholic faith. That is what brings us back to the whole offensiveness of the language of the Act of the Settlement.
	As I say, I would be happy to see no change at all. The way a country builds up and the way its monarchy develops is lost in the mists of time. To whom that monarchy goes is another issue. We have had discussions about whether the monarchy goes through a strict genealogical line. It does not. By the time of the reign of George V, there were 1,000 people closer to Charles I in the succession than his late Imperial Majesty. It is not something that has been taken back, as we look at Asser’s “Life of Alfred”, to Adam and Eve. Asser’s “Life of Alfred” begins with his genealogy going back to Adam and Eve, but that is not true. Our monarchy is, in fact, established by statute—initially by ancient statute from which it has then developed. The difficulty is that when we start changing part of the statute and allow one thing to happen, there are consequences that will have an effect on other parts of the structure.

Dan Rogerson: I am following the hon. Gentleman’s argument closely, and I see, as have other Members, that he is arguing that the provisions just move the injustice on a generation rather than deal with the issue. His solution would be “leave it alone”; another solution is “make a change”. My position would be “let us not make the best the enemy of the good.” We might be able to explore the issues raised by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) on another occasion, but let us at least make some progress now.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I do not agree with that, because when we bring legislation before this House, we are not limited by three or four words. We have it within our power to rewrite the whole of the Act of Settlement. That is why I think that, if we are not going to leave the whole thing alone, we have to make the fundamental change: we have to get rid of the fundamental injustice.
	I am not going to hold myself up as a great bastion of political correctness. That is not a creed to which I particularly hold or one for which I have any great concern, but I do think that, broadly speaking, there should be equality of tolerance among the religions people choose to follow in this country, and that statute law should not favour one religion against another within the context of an established Church that provides a backdrop of Christianity for historical reasons and that has been a strength of this nation.

Bob Stewart: My hon. Friend is such a valued Member and knows so much, so does he think that we are about to produce bad law?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Yes, indeed I do. It is the point I have been making at great length all afternoon. In making that point, I would like to thank the Minister for her patient answers to my almost interminable questions. She has done that with great grace and thoughtfulness, for which I am deeply appreciative, but I am still in disagreement. I think this clause would be better left out of the Bill. If we are going to make a change, it needs to be thoroughgoing; otherwise, we simply reinforce the offence of the Act of Settlement and the wording of the Bill of Rights. We need to live, however, with our great and noble history, which is part of what we have grown up with, part of being a subject of the Queen, and part of being a person of the United Kingdom, to put it that way. My preference is for the clause to be removed, but if it is to be included, it should be part of a thoroughgoing reform that allows a Catholic to succeed, but protects the Supreme Governor of the Church of England.

Chloe Smith: With the leave of the Committee, Mr Bone, I shall be very brief.
	Let me again acknowledge the breadth and, indeed, the quality of the arguments that have been advanced this afternoon. I shall not even begin to attempt to define key points in important religions, and for that reason I shall not accept the challenge issued to me by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). I do not think that it is for a Minister to do that. However, I also acknowledge that clauses such as this lead to tensions in Government.
	The existing legislation prevents a successor to the Crown from marrying a Catholic. I hear the arguments that the proposal in the Bill may create a situation
	requiring—as one Member put it—wisdom and good sense on the part of parents, and indeed the child himself or herself, and I accept that that constitutes a tension, but I believe that the clause strikes a balance that will be helpful to the 21st-century monarchy.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Clause 2 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3
	 — 
	Consent of Sovereign required to certain Royal Marriages

Chloe Smith: I beg to move amendment 2, page 1, line 20, after ‘descendants’ insert ‘from the marriage’.
	Clause 3 is, as a Member put it earlier, one of the more arcane provisions in the Bill. The Royal Marriages Act 1772 currently requires, subject to some very limited exceptions, the descendants of George II to seek the consent of the monarch before marrying. That probably affects hundreds of people, and we do not think that such a sweeping provision continues to serve a useful purpose today.
	Amendment agreed to.
	Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Mark Durkan: I do not intend to detain the Committee for long. I merely wish to ask the Minister to address herself to questions that have been raised about the number six. The hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) suggested one explanation, and other Members made further suggestions. I should also like the Minister to consider how the Government envisage the discharging of the sovereign’s consent in practice, and whether the decision on granting that consent could depend on the religion of the person concerned.

Chris Bryant: Would it not be helpful if the Minister at least told us that the Government would consider amending the Bill in another place to ensure that the provision could not be used to prevent an heir to the throne from marrying a Roman Catholic?

Mark Durkan: Absolutely. Earlier, a Government Member referred to clause 2(1), in which we seem to think we are telling ourselves that we are removing the bar on the marriage of an heir to the throne to a Roman Catholic. However, it could well be that clause 3 allows the sovereign to continue to exercise such a bar, or a future monarch to exercise it, precisely to avoid some of the issues that other Members have already raised.

Mark Reckless: Does the hon. Gentleman think it would be helpful if the Minister were to clarify the position on what we think is implied by the Bill, which is that clause 2(1) is subject to clause 3(1)?

Mark Durkan: That would be very helpful, because the problem is that clause 3(1) reads as though it could be an ouster for clause 2(1); the joker still rests with a future monarch to refuse marriage on the grounds I have set out. Of course other issues might arise, and this provision would be the subject of all sorts of conjecture
	and speculation. The Government would therefore want to clarify it where they can, if not today, at least on a future occasion.
	In this stand part debate, I would like the Minister to address one other area, which has not yet been raised. The Bill refers solely to marriage and does not mention civil partnership. I therefore take it that somebody would not be barred from having their place in the line of succession if they had a civil partnership, with or without the consent of the sovereign. The provision specifically refers exclusively to marriage, so will the Minister clarify that it would not present an issue in respect of a civil partnership? Such a partnership might raise its own issues for the Churches, particularly the Church of England. I wonder why the Government specifically refer to marriage, because most other bits of legislation that refer to marriage also refer to civil partnership.

Kevin Brennan: Would it not have been more sensible, in this constitutional monarchy of ours—no matter what one thinks of that as a system of government—for the person succeeding to the throne to be determined either by God, through the accident of birth, or through Parliament? It should not be determined by the caprice of the monarch.

Mark Durkan: I thank the hon. Gentleman for speaking up for God as well as for Parliament. His point again raises some of the issues that we have been dealing with today and the difficulties we find when we get into the constitutional fineries, particularly those of an unwritten constitution.
	Let me return to the issue of civil partnerships and why the Bill contains no reference to them. I remind the Minister that equal marriage legislation will be coming before the House, and many hon. Members will be tabling and supporting amendments that would also seek to have opportunities in respect of civil partnerships. They may propose that civil partnerships would no longer be restricted as an option only for same-sex couples, but would be open for other people to register their loving relationship, so that couples of either type would have an equal choice between the rite of marriage and civil partnership. That equal marriage legislation might be amended so that civil partnerships could end up being available to people of different sexes, and therefore children would issue from those, too. So again the question arises: why do this Bill and this clause refer only to consent for marriage, and not consent for civil partnership?

Christopher Pincher: I am grateful to the Minister for suggesting on Second Reading that in 200 or 300 years I may be Father of the House. My right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Sir Peter Tapsell) may have something to say about that, either now or in 200 or 300 years’ time. May I press her on the clause a little more, because her earlier remarks cause me to do so, and refer her to clause 2 of the Royal Marriages Act 1772? It states:
	“In case any descendant of Geo. 2.—
	George II—
	“being above 25 years old, shall persist to contract a marriage disapproved of by his Majesty, such descendant, after giving 12 months notice to the Privy Council, may contract such marriage;
	and the same may be duly solemnized, without the previous consent of his Majesty; and shall be good; except both Houses of Parliament shall declare their disapproval thereof.”
	In other words, if someone is over 25 and has made their intentions clear to the Privy Council, they can get married unless Parliament says that they cannot.
	The Bill states in clause 3:
	“A person who (when the person marries) is one of the 6 persons next in the line of succession to the Crown must obtain the consent of Her Majesty before marrying.”
	In other words, no matter how old that person is they must actively gain the consent of the monarch before marrying and must wait for the Queen or King to say yes. Any reasonable person would infer that the Government appear to be trying to tighten the rules about whom members of the royal family can marry and to give the monarch some extra leverage. Will the Minister confirm that? If that is the case, can she explain much more clearly, as the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) asked, why six has been chosen for the number of those in the line of succession who are subject to this rule? If the idea is to tighten the rules and make it easier for the sovereign to control whom his or her descendents close to the line of succession may marry, surely the number should be greater than six or we should prescribe that it applies to the heirs and descendents of Elizabeth II. Surely grandchildren of a reigning monarch who are Royal Highnesses and active members of the royal family might not be subject to the provision.
	I would be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister could make the decision-making process in reaching that number clear and tell us what advice the Government were given about the number six, why they rejected other numbers and why they rejected the idea of having no numbers. That will allow us to be clear about the Government’s intentions.

Chris Bryant: I rather agree with the hon. Member for Tamworth (Christopher Pincher). I am wholeheartedly in favour of getting rid of the 1772 Act, which seems a ludicrous piece of legislation that has always been ineffectual. It has encouraged monarchs to be capricious in granting or not granting consent and it was introduced as a capricious piece of legislation. My problem is with clause 3, which is meant to replace it. As the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) said, there is no stipulation about whether such permission is necessary for a civil partnership. I presume that all six members could form a civil partnership and succeed to the throne without that being an issue, but if the Government’s same-sex marriage proposals were introduced, they would then have to make a request and have consent granted. I simply do not understand, and I am afraid the Minister has made it far worse for me this afternoon than it was before. Her suggestion that some convenience will be drawn up between Ministers who might or might not be advising means that there will be no clarity for Parliament.
	For instance, a potential future heir to the throne might be denied consent to marry by the monarch deliberately because they wanted to exclude them from the succession, and for no other reason. The Bill makes no provision to state that that would be inappropriate. I say that that might happen in the future, because that is
	precisely what George III tried to do to George IV through the 1772 Act. If the clause is carried into legislation, the monarch will be able, entirely of their own volition and without any guidance from Parliament, to decide who should be excluded from the succession. The only thing that might militate against that would be if somebody got married before they became one of the six or before the monarch took offence or a dislike to them.
	The Minister pointed out that other countries have similar provisions. It is true that, of the constitutional monarchies in Europe, Denmark, Sweden and the Netherlands have similar provisions. However, Norway has no such provision—it just has a simple law of succession, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) said. It is provided for by the caprice of God, as it were, whereas in two of the three countries that have a similar provision it is a vote of Parliament that decides. For the Crown and the Crown’s Ministers to reserve to themselves the decision as to who should be barred from the succession flies in the face of the history of this country, as the succession is a matter that has always been decided by the whole of Parliament—both Houses of Parliament—through statute law. That is why I am deeply, deeply suspicious of the first three subsections, and my suspicions have been made far worse by what the Minister has said this afternoon.

Mark Reckless: The Minister owes the House and perhaps the wider nation and realms beyond these shores an explanation as to why the number 6 has been selected in subsection (1), and what considerations have been brought to bear in the matter.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Christopher Pincher) suggested an alternative, and said that the measure should apply to all heirs and successors of Queen Elizabeth II. I am concerned that, if we moved in that direction, such a measure would contain the seeds of its own obsolescence, rather like the Royal Marriages Act 1772 excluding all the descendants of George II except for those with a particular exemption. The numbers would balloon over time, and many of the same issues would remain.
	The key issue to which the Minister should respond, and which Parliament should debate before the measure becomes law, is whether subsection (1) is subject to clause 2(1). For me, that is an important point. Having listened to all the debate, I remain undecided as to whether the Bill is an improvement on the status quo because it removes the discrimination with respect to a Catholic being able to marry someone who may inherit the throne, or whether I ascribe to the views expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) that it may kill a minor discrimination at the expense of reopening the whole issue, and we would then be looking at the Act of Settlement as amended by the Bill increasing the offensiveness of those words on the statute.
	I can see the virtue of both arguments, but what weighs in the balance is the question of whether clause 2(1) is an absolute improvement or whether it may be overturned by a Crown decision under clause 3(1) acting under the prerogative on Ministers’ advice, which could still lead to someone being excluded as a result of marrying
	someone of the Roman Catholic faith, notwithstanding clause 2(1). I should appreciate it if the Minister provided clarity on that, preferably today, but if not, in subsequent proceedings.

Wayne David: As the Minister knows, we support the Bill, particularly clauses 2 and 3. However, a number of Members have raised the issue that the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) just mentioned. He put it very well, and there appears to be a contradiction, or at least a potential contradiction, between clause 2(1) and clause 3(1). If there is, which provision has precedence? That is an important point, and it would be advantageous, if explicit clarification cannot be given now, if it is provided when the Bill goes to the other place. That reinforces the point made by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), which was well put.
	Will the Minister take a step back and consider the rationale behind the clause? A different approach would have been to make the reference point the descendants of George VI, rather than the descendants of George II. I do not know how many descendants that would include, but in some ways it would have been clearer, instead of the apparently arbitrary figure of six.
	I endorse the comments of those who asked why six. The Deputy Prime Minister said that it was a pragmatic decision. The Minister suggested that there was some historical justification. We need a little more meat on that skeleton to justify the figure of six. If six is seen to be a fairly arbitrary figure, perhaps it is not too late to rethink the rationale for the way the clause is framed. We support the intention behind the clause. Clearly, what is on the statute book is unacceptable and even ridiculous, but we need to find a rational and sensible way to move beyond that.
	Clause 3(2) states that when consent has been obtained,
	“it must be-
	(a) signified under the Great Seal of the United Kingdom,
	(b) declared in Council, and
	(c) recorded in the books of the Privy Council.”
	That is clear as it stands, but what are the implications for public knowledge of what decisions might be taken? It would be useful to know if any of these decisions will be made available to the public at some point in the future. Would we have to wait a number of years? Would the decisions be subject to freedom of information requests? Those are reasonable questions. We need a monarchy that is modern, in tune with the thinking of our times and supportive of the principle of transparency. I would welcome clarification on those points.

Chris Bryant: The Minister referred to the 1967 provisions. As I understand it, that was because some members of the Cabinet were unhappy at the idea of somebody in the line of succession to the throne marrying a divorcee. Obviously, that does not apply today, where the other person’s partner is still alive. This cannot be left to the discretion of the monarch and of Ministers. It must come to Parliament.

Wayne David: That is almost an extrapolation of what I was saying. If the decision is in the public domain, it becomes, in a sense, the property of Parliament
	and it is open to us to discuss the issue, if not to make a determination. I would welcome the Minister’s response to those points.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I have only one question on the clause. It relates to the position of members of the royal family who are not among the first six and therefore not subject to the new royal marriages Act. As the Minister will know, members of the royal family are generally excluded from Marriage Acts, as they have been from Hardwicke’s Marriage Act onwards, and I would be concerned if members of the royal family who were not the six closest to the throne had any complications in being certain that their marriages were valid.
	I wonder, therefore, what the Government’s view on this is and whether any future legislation is intended, or whether it is intended that members of the royal family outside the six will be brought under the normal Marriage Acts in future.

Chloe Smith: Now might be the moment to make a few general comments on clause stand part, as well as to respond to hon. Members’ questions. As has been made particularly clear, clause 3 repeals the Royal Marriages Act 1772 and replaces it with provisions that we believe are more suitable for the modern context. The original 1772 provision probably affects hundreds of people. We do not think that such a sweeping provision is practical or serves a useful purpose today. Indeed, if we want to dwell on Cabinet history, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who thought that those provisions were obscure and unsatisfactory, might note that this was raised by the Cabinet as far back as 1960.
	Clause 3 seeks to ensure that the sovereign’s consent is obtained before the first six people in the line of succession can marry. Various hon. Members have asked why the number is six. I want to answer that question with reference to the reasonable reach of changes, which I referred to earlier. There is a question about unreasonably changing the legitimate expectations of those closest to the throne, and I think that we ought to take a cautious approach in such an area. The Government believe that the consent of the monarch for the marriages of the first six people in the line of succession provides a measure of reasonable proximity. Indeed, since the 1772 Act was enacted, the throne has never passed to anybody who was more than six steps away in the line of succession. Therefore, subsection (1) limits the requirement to seek the monarch’s consent to the first six people.

Mark Reckless: If the Crown has not passed to anyone beyond No. 6, has it passed to anyone who was No. 6? If so, is that the rationale for choosing that number?

Chloe Smith: Historians in the House might leap to correct me, but I understand that Queen Victoria was the most extreme example, at No. 5. I hope that answers my hon. Friend’s question.
	Let me turn to the notion that the sovereign ought not to have a part in that decision. The role of the sovereign in giving consent to a royal marriage is part of our tradition and is entrenched in law. The Government also consider that there is a public interest in the marriages
	of those closest to the throne, so we believe that the requirement to seek the sovereign’s consent continues to serve a valuable purpose.

Christopher Pincher: If my hon. Friend accepts that the public have a legitimate interest in active members of the royal family, who might be styled “Royal Highness”, and that the monarch might therefore wish to have some control over who they marry, does she not agree that the monarch might wish to have some control over who those who are seventh, eighth or ninth in line to the throne marry, as they, too, might be active members of the royal family who are styled “Royal Highness”?

Chloe Smith: Two points need to be made in response to that question. We here in Parliament, taking due account of our responsibilities to legislate on such matters, do so cautiously. We have used a pragmatic number, and I have tried to explain from where we have derived that number. We think that it is cautious and pragmatic. However, I also referred to the notion of the people who come within the scope of the Bill also exercising wisdom, good sense, pragmatism and caution. I suggest that it would not be beyond the realms of possibility for a person who is No. 7 or No. 8 to be careful in such matters. That is perhaps as far as I ought to go on that, but I do not think that that is beyond the bounds of reasonableness. However, the fact is that we in Parliament have to fix a number. I have tried to explain why we think that number ought to be six.

Andrew Turner: Will my hon. Friend help me, because I simply do not understand what she means by five, six or seven. For example, what was Queen Victoria’s number in relation to the previous King?

Chloe Smith: Putting blood relationships to one side, as I understand it Queen Victoria was the fifth in line to the point at which those consents were sought. We want the current monarch to be able to look ahead six times. It is the case that the throne has never passed to anyone more than six steps away in the line of succession. I hope that those two points answer my hon. Friend’s question.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: It might help my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Turner) if I went through the list as it relates to Queen Victoria in relation to George III. George III’s heir, George IV, is No. 1; Princess Charlotte is No. 2; King William is No. 3; the Duke of Kent is No. 4; and Queen Victoria is No. 5. That is how we get to five on the basis that the Minister has been calculating.

Chloe Smith: I am eternally grateful in so many ways to my hon. Friend. I suppose that an alternative way of expressing the point would be to say that the throne had changed hands five times. I hope that the combination of comments has made things clear to my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Turner).
	Let me turn to the common question, asked by several hon. Members, of whether clause 2 knocks out clause 3, as it were. I want to answer it with reference to what I said to the hon. Member for Rhondda. The monarch
	will act having taken advice from Ministers, who will wish to take account of the public interest. That is a clear expression of my earlier point.
	If, as I hope, the Bill passes, clause 2 will stand and Ministers will need to have regard to it if they consider a situation under clause 3.

Chris Bryant: What happens if, for instance, the monarch disagrees with Ministers and Parliament disagrees with Ministers or the monarch—if it takes one side or the other? There is no means of determining a proper reason for coming to the decision, and now the Minister has added yet another category, which is that No. 7 and No. 8 in the line of succession have to be careful. This is just a mess.

Chloe Smith: The legislation is clear. The sovereign’s consent is required. The 1772 Act, as the hon. Gentleman identified, had a role for Parliament. Clause 3 repeals that Act and replaces it with provisions under which the sovereign’s consent is required. Clause 3(2)(a), (b) and (c) explains how that occurs.
	I will be happy to come back to the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) with further details about how data are handled under those three categories; as he well knows, there is a greater debate to be had.
	I want to reiterate and clarify my points about Nos. 7 and 8 in the line of succession. I simply note that the line of succession is such that, without being blunt about it, people pass away. Nos. 7 and 8 ought to be able to expect that such situations change; that is the only comment I make. It is therefore clear that a certain amount of pragmatism should go into that situation.

Chris Bryant: I am not sure what “being careful” means. Nowhere in the Bill is a valid reason given for not giving consent. For instance, would marrying a drug baron be a reason for not giving consent? I raise that because that was the case in the Netherlands, and it was one reason why consent was denied. But it was denied by Parliament, because that is the Dutch system, which is much more sensible. Would it be legitimate to refuse consent on the basis of there being a same-sex marriage?

Chloe Smith: I shall be happy to come in a second to the provisions on civil partnership and same-sex marriage.
	On the use of caution, I simply reiterate the point that I have made several times in the course of the debate—that we are talking about human beings and, on the whole, a limited family. It is not beyond the bounds of reason for members of that family to act with regard to the legislation that we are passing. I will leave it at that, as Mr Bone would of course stop me if I went further into matters that are outwith the scope of this Bill. There is a need for Parliament to select a number, and I have explained why six is appropriate. I have also attempted to deal with what happens to members in the line of succession who might be close to becoming No. 6.

Mark Durkan: The Minister said that six is a practical number, but she also said that Nos. 7 and 8 will need to be “careful”. Needing to be careful might be interpreted
	in their minds as, “Get married quick before anything happens that means that you become No. 6 and therefore have to get the monarch’s consent.” It might appear to mean, “Marry in haste.”

Chloe Smith: I have nothing more to add to the comments I made a few moments ago. I think that in these situations a degree of pragmatism might prevail.

Christopher Pincher: The Minister talks about practicalities and pragmatism, and people showing good sense. May I remind her that Queen Victoria had nine children, all of whom contracted marriage? Under these proposals, six of them would have had to seek the Queen’s consent to marriage and three would not. Is that sensible? Would the Queen have been amused?

Chloe Smith: My hon. Friend asks me to comment on a direct historical precedent. I do not think it is helpful to do that, because it is, after all, the past. Mr Evans, who is now in the Chair, would of course stop me if I sought to impute any opinion to any member of the royal family, past or present.
	Let me move on to what the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) said about civil ceremonies and civil partnerships. There is no bar on the heir or other members of the royal family marrying in a civil ceremony. Moreover, I am unaware of any legal bar to somebody who is in a same-sex relationship acceding to the throne. I would envisage that the sovereign’s consent measures in clause 3 would continue to be the case for same-sex relationships. I will not comment on legislation that this House has not yet considered, which, as the hon. Gentleman might understand, would cover the notion of same-sex marriage.

Mark Reckless: Like the hon. Gentleman, I have been trying to clarify whether clause 3(1) will be subject to clause 2(1). The Minister has said that Ministers would have regard to clause 2(1) in advising the Crown on use of the prerogative. Is that an intentionally weaker formulation than being subject to clause 2(1)?

Chloe Smith: My response was not in any way an attempt to fail to answer my hon. Friend’s question. As clause 2 will be a part of this legislation, it will be lawful for Ministers to refer to it. I would therefore say that clause 2 does apply to decisions made under clause 3.
	The hon. Member for Caerphilly and my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Christopher Pincher) suggested alternative ways of replacing or updating the Royal Marriages Act 1772. My hon. Friend suggested that we simply substitute descendants of George II with those of Elizabeth II, our current monarch, and the hon. Gentleman suggested that we do the same with regard to the descendants of George IV. Either of those approaches could lead to an identical ballooning of the problem that we have seen under the Royal Marriages Act. It is obvious that the situation would only get worse with time as more and more descendants came into existence. A sensible approach is to replace the unworkable provisions of the Royal Marriages Act with a measure that is limited, pragmatic, and, as the Bill suggests, subject to procedures including the Great Seal and Order in Council.
	Finally, clause 3(5) makes provision that marriages previously made void by the Royal Marriages Act are
	not to be regarded as invalid, which is important. Subsection (6) ensures that the validity of the descent of the Crown from King George II down to the present day will not be affected by the changes in subsection (5). We have already covered the other subsections. The measures provide a sensible update. We have already dealt with the Government amendment that ensures that the clear policy intention behind the Bill is correctly expressed by it.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Clause 3, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5
	 — 
	Commencement and short title

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Gerald Howarth: I rise to speak briefly to clause 5 because earlier, when I put it to the Deputy Prime Minister that this Bill, if and when it is enacted by this Parliament, will not be effective until such time as it has been ratified by the legislatures of the other 15 realms, the Deputy Prime Minister was unfortunately not able to give me an answer as to when he thought that process might be complete. Although I understand that he confirmed that this Bill will not be enacted until the other 15 realms have enacted their provisions, will my hon. Friend the Minister expand on and enlighten the House about subsection (3), which states that the provisions will come into force at different days and times?

Chloe Smith: I shall certainly do my best. I thank my hon. Friend for seeking to end our debate with an issue about which we spoke earlier.
	All the realms need to bring these measures into force. We have a clear commitment from them that they are doing so, and we are working closely with them to ensure smooth application. It is difficult to give a date today, but I shall endeavour to keep not only my hon. Friend, but the House updated on it. As I think he knows, not all the realms need to legislate, so slightly different processes will take place in each. The agreement between the Commonwealth countries is that the measures will apply from the point in 2011 when agreement was secured.

Wayne David: Is my understanding correct that, under the Statute of Westminster 1931, although individual Parliaments in the respective states of the Commonwealth might give their assent in different ways, they do have to give their assent?

Chloe Smith: I share that understanding. The hon. Gentleman reinforces my point that although other realms will make their provisions in slightly different procedural ways, we certainly expect that to happen and I look forward to them being brought into force.

Gerald Howarth: I apologise for persisting in this, but much emphasis has been given throughout the day to the idea that, if we amend this Bill, that might prejudice the agreement that was reached at Perth. Presumably
	that stricture applies to all the other 15 realms. Does my hon. Friend have any intelligence to share with the House in how others see it? Also, if any of those 15 realms were to amend their legislation, would that affect us?

Chloe Smith: As I said, I think it is best to acknowledge the challenges in that co-ordination process, and my hon. Friend makes clear some of the complexity involved. As I said, we are working with those realms to ensure smooth application of the legislation, and I look forward to keeping the House updated.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Clause 5 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	Schedule

Consequential amendments

Question proposed, That the schedule be the schedule to the Bill.

Chris Bryant: I want to ask the Minister about the provisions relating to the Treason Act 1351. I presume that one reason why different legislatures around the world might come to slightly different legislative answers, yet still give the same assent, is that they have different provisions on the law of treason, whereas we still have the 1351 Act on the statute book. Why has the Minister insisted on including paragraph 1(b) in the schedule?

Chloe Smith: I suspect that the hon. Gentleman is seeking to draw me into matters that have been the subject of public controversy in relatively recent years. The important point, as he suggested, is that the realms to which the Bill will apply have other relevant legislation and customs. For example, one of the many reasons why we are not discussing hereditary peerages today is that they are not a uniform matter across all the realms. There are other reasons, but you will be pleased to know that I shall not reopen the debate, Mr Evans. I confirm that we are working with all the other realms to ensure that the relevant legislation is amended appropriately.

Chris Bryant: rose—

Nigel Evans: Is the Minister giving way?

Chloe Smith: I would rather the Question be put.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Schedule accordingly agreed to.
	The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.
	Bill, as amended, reported.
	Bill to be considered tomorrow.

Business without Debate
	 — 
	Delegated Legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Energy Conservation

That the draft Green Deal Framework (Disclosure, Acknowledgement, Redress etc.) (Amendment) Regulations 2013, which were laid before this House on 10 December 2012, be approved.—(Mr Swayne.)
	Question agreed to.

European Union Documents

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 119(11)),

Control of Fluorinated Gases

That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 15984/12, and Addenda 1 and 2, relating to a draft Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on fluorinated greenhouse gases; and supports the Government’s view that changes to some aspects of the Commission’s regulatory proposal are required to deliver the legislative basis necessary to support and encourage the use of lower global warming potential refrigerants whilst offering a pragmatic solution that is not technology prescriptive, does not hinder innovation to lower greenhouse gas emissions over the different fields of applications and does not prohibit the use of equipment that has not reached the end of its economic life.—(Mr Swayne.)
	Question agreed to.

Business of the House (31 January)

Ordered,
	That, at the sitting on 31 January—
	(1) notwithstanding Standing Order No. 20 (Time for taking private business) the Private Business set down by the Chairman of Ways and Means may be entered upon at any hour, and may then be proceeded with for three hours, after which the Speaker shall interrupt the business;
	(2) notwithstanding sub-paragraph (2)(c) of Standing Order No. 14, the backbench business set down for consideration shall be entered upon at the conclusion of the Private Business set down for that day.—(Mr Swayne.)

UK TRADE AND INVESTMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mr Swayne.)

Daniel Kawczynski: I am pleased to have secured this Adjournment debate on the performance of UK Trade & Investment. The last time we had a debate on UKTI on the Floor of the House was last March, when it was secured by my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys). I very much regret that there are not more opportunities for Members to scrutinise UKTI’s performance.
	I very much welcome the work done by Lord Green and his colleagues at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, but it is regrettable that so few Members of Parliament seek opportunities to scrutinise UKTI’s performance. We debate a great deal in this Chamber about how to slice up and apportion the cake, but exports are about making the cake bigger. I spent most of my working life before entering this House in exports, and I feel passionately about their importance in bringing wealth and prosperity to our nation.
	As the European Union continues to diminish in importance vis-à-vis British exports, so I turn to the middle east and north Africa. I pay tribute to my American intern, Mr Justin King—it is entirely plausible that one day he will become a congressman, and I very much hope so. He is helping me greatly to interview hundreds of small British companies. They are coming from all over the United Kingdom to my office in the House of Commons to show me their evidence and experience of UKTI, and of trying to interact with it.
	Before I continue with my speech I want to give three examples of why the MENA area—middle east and north Africa—is so important. I am chairman of two all-party two groups: the Saudi Arabia all-party group, and the all-party group on Libya. When we went to Saudi Arabia, the Saudi King himself admonished me saying that the lack of British exports to that country was regrettable. He said that all our European Union competitors were motoring ahead, and that it was regrettable that the United Kingdom is falling behind our main competitors in exports to Saudi Arabia.
	Sixty British companies operate in Tunisia, compared with 1,800 French companies. I will repeat that—60 compared with 1,800. I was the first British Member of Parliament ever to go to Mauritania since its independence in 1960, and almost no British companies export there. We are good at exporting to countries that speak English, but the French-speaking part of the world is almost a vortex for British interests, particularly commercial interests. If this week has shown anything, given the problems in Algeria and Mali, it is that it is essential that we engage with those strategically important countries of north Africa, primarily by assisting our own companies to interact with those countries, and help them with exports, and—vitally—technology transfer.

Mark Williams: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. Does he also agree that there is a role for promoting our higher education institutions in those countries? My hon. Friend does a great deal, and as PPS in the Wales Office he
	does a lot for Wales. I am sure he will be aware of the significant and important businesses we could be exporting that originate in our universities in Wales.

Daniel Kawczynski: I concur with my hon. Friend and he reminds me of an important point. Whenever I go to the middle east I see that the British brand is so strong. Because we are British we tend to hide our light under a bushel, but overseas the British brand is incredibly strong—it is sterling, A-plus, gold standard—and people are desperate to buy British.
	My hon. Friend is correct. Shrewsbury school, one of the best private schools in the world, is so popular that we cannot accommodate all the foreigners who wish to study there. They have had to build a Shrewsbury school in Bangkok, and there are current negotiations to build another in the middle east. I completely concur with my hon. Friend.
	Let me say how important advertising is. I understand there are constraints on Government budgets, and that the Cabinet Office is obviously not keen to loosen the purse strings. There should, however, be a significant increase in the budget for UKTI. I want a nationwide campaign in this country, through the television, media, newspapers, and even product placements in soap operas, by which we constantly inform small and medium-sized companies throughout the country that UKTI exists and that there are opportunities to engage with it and for them to receive support to export.
	I still remember the “Tell Sid” campaign in the 1980s to try to get us to buy British Gas. I want such a campaign now—a campaign that people talk about and get excited about.
	The best campaign I have experienced in my seven years as a Member of Parliament is Joanna Lumley’s Gurkha campaign. She revolutionised the campaign when she took it over. The media suddenly became extraordinarily interested. I want a national figure—somebody of renowned business intellect and experience, whether Richard Branson or Alan Sugar—to have a programme on television. It could be called “Export Apprentice” rather than just “The Apprentice”. They should also be a guru and a champion and spearhead a nationwide campaign to ensure that our small and medium-sized companies are passionate about exporting.

Gerald Howarth: I will not endorse my hon. Friend’s support for Joanna Lumley, who has inflicted 10,000 elderly Nepalese on my constituency—he will forgive me if I do not hold her up as a role model—but, the Defence Export Services Organisation, which is part of UKTI, has magnificent champions in Richard Paniguian, the head of DESO, and his entire team. The UK defence industry owes a huge amount to the energy and enthusiasm of DESO. The Prime Minister, who has been the key champion of defence exports, particularly in the middle east and north Africa regions of which my hon. Friend speaks, has been hugely well supported by UKTI and our noble Friend Lord Green of Hurstpierpoint. DESO is doing a superb job and yielding results.

Daniel Kawczynski: Of course, parts of UKTI are extremely successful. If DESO’s success could be replicated in all other sectors, we will be firing on all cylinders.

Chris White: Is my hon. Friend aware that the video games industry added £1.4 billion to exports in 2010? Would he support UKTI giving appropriate resource to the creative industries?

Daniel Kawczynski: I concur with my hon. Friend. We should support overseas all the industries that we are good at.
	UK export finance is available, but many of the small and medium-sized companies I speak to in my constituency of Shrewsbury are not aware of the export finance support they can get from UKTI.
	I asked a very good friend of mine who works in the private sector what he would do if he were promoting business in a country such as the United Arab Emirates, where 130,000 British citizens reside. He said he would put just four people in an office in the UAE and give them the sole task of constantly updating a database of all the public and private sector procurement opportunities in the country. The database would have to be updated daily and constantly reviewed to include not just the large, multi-million pound opportunities, but smaller ones.
	The database could be relayed daily to the regional directors of UKTI in the UK. I recently met Paul Noon, the UKTI regional director for the west midlands. The regional directors should in turn create databases of all the companies in their regions, so they understand every company in, for example, the west midlands, and what they can do. Like a telephone switchboard operator, they could then marry up each company in the west midlands to each opportunity identified in the UAE. I know from the discussions I have had with Shrewsbury businesses that they are simply not being told of the opportunities that exist in the UAE. That is just one case in point.

Sarah Newton: The support I have received from UKTI in the south-west for businesses in my constituency has been fantastic. It put on an export fair with me this summer that attracted more than 90 small businesses in Cornwall. A tea growing company in my constituency now exports lots of tea to China. Small businesses in Cornwall get a lot of help from UKTI.

Daniel Kawczynski: I am very pleased for my hon. Friend and wish the company every success in exporting tea to China.
	UKTI should appreciate these debates. I am proud of its achievements, but of course we should always scrutinise it to see if it can do more. This country became one of the greatest countries in the world through its ability to trade. We are not exporting as much as I would like, which is why it is so important to have these debates, and I am pleased that my hon. Friend has had a positive experience.
	I do not want salaries to be just mediocre or okay for UKTI staff—many do a very good job. I want them to be the best, because I want UKTI to recruit the best. I want them to have greater incentives and bonuses to push for trade. My understanding—the Minister may correct me if I am wrong—is that UKTI staff are monitored as a whole, rather than as individuals. It is extremely important that we start to monitor individual performance. When I was in exports, if I did not hit my
	one-month target there would be problems; if I did not hit the two-month target, there would be serious problems; if I did not hit the three-month target, I would be out of a job. We have that pressure in the private sector, and it focuses the mind on delivering what is expected. I hope we can bring that private sector focus to UKTI.
	I mentioned co-ordination across the country. I am the chair of two all-party groups: for Saudi Arabia and for Libya. Not once have I ever been contacted, in seven years, by anybody in UKTI about all of my delegations to Saudi Arabia and Libya—not on a proactive basis anyway. We, as parliamentarians, do an important job when we go to such countries. We meet important officials and leaders, so it is important for UKTI to understand all-party groups. Some are very active and UKTI should be engaging with us to find out what we are doing and try to have a common approach.

Jim Shannon: Does the hon. Gentleman see that it is the export not just of UK products, but of skills that help to increase business in Libya and the other countries in the middle east to which he has referred?

Daniel Kawczynski: I spent the afternoon with His Excellency Mustafa Abdul-Jalil, the former Libyan Prime Minister, who, with his counterparts, bravely brought about the revolution. He said the very same thing to me: that they are desperate for British skills, not just exported goods. They desperately need our experts in the fields of banking, commerce, education and health care. I agree with the hon. Gentleman.
	The Prime Minister has started to appoint trade ambassadors and I have not heard from any of them so far, apart from my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham), who I think has been appointed to look after Indonesia. He is not in the Chamber at the moment, but I pay tribute to how he has been trying to engage with parliamentarians in a proactive way, and explaining what he is doing with companies from across the UK. He is helping them to enter Indonesia, and encouraging other hon. Members with companies that could benefit from participating. The Middle East Association and the Arab British Chamber of Commerce are also acutely involved in exports to the middle east. I hope that the Minister will give me an assurance that efforts will be redoubled to co-ordinate with all trade ambassadors, all-party parliamentary groups, the MEA and the ABCC to ensure that we have a co-ordinated approach as one country with one strategy, with all of us who are interested in exports consulted and utilised to constantly update our constituents on all the opportunities that exist.
	I have come across instances where business has been lost in the United Arab Emirates, Iraq and other countries, when business men from those countries have wished to come to the United Kingdom to visit a particular project or institution—to see whether it is appropriate to build in their country or whether their company has the calibre to undertake such a project—and their visas have been rejected. As a result, the business has been lost, obviously to the great annoyance of the host country and the business people involved. There must be greater co-ordination between UKTI and the Home Office to ensure that visas are granted to the genuine
	business men from all over the middle east who are trying to come to the United Kingdom either for training courses or to look at projects and companies.
	UKTI is good at high-value opportunities. As I have said, I recently had the privilege of meeting Paul Noon, the director of UKTI in the west midlands. I applaud the work that UKTI does and I am grateful to the Minister for all his efforts. In my view, there has been a radical shift over the last two and a half years. The Prime Minister has said that he wants our embassies to be shop windows for British businesses. To a degree, I can see a vast improvement in our embassies. A lot of that is a tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister and his colleagues who have ensured that all the people at our embassies, from the ambassadors downwards, are focused on supporting small and medium-sized companies to export overseas to the middle east and north Africa, but too many of these opportunities are the really big ones. We need a massively increased focus, drilling down in every MENA country to the smallest of opportunities, no matter how small. We also need the sharing of information between all British companies. We are very bad at exchanging information with one another in this country compared with our European Union counterparts.
	This debate follows the last one, almost a year on. My colleague Mr Justin King and I are writing a report—it will go to every Member of Parliament, including the Prime Minister—about the real experiences of small and medium-sized companies and their feedback. I very much hope that the Minister will give me an assurance that he and his Department will take seriously that report and our passion for increasing British exports.

Mark Simmonds: I join others in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) on securing this important debate and putting on record his dedication not just to his constituency, but to driving the UK’s recovery by rebalancing the economy, based on export-driven recovery. He was absolutely right to highlight at the beginning of his speech the importance of the progress made since May 2010, with the refocusing of the Foreign Office on the prosperity agenda and the refocusing of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills on the strategy of pursuing an export-led recovery.
	My hon. Friend was also right to highlight some of the progress made in exporting expertise, particularly in responding to our hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) about its importance in the education sector, and also in discussing other key areas. My hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham was right to point out that the UK is highly regarded elsewhere in the world, not just in traditional Anglophone countries, but in the French-speaking world, in which I travel quite extensively given my additional and other responsibilities in Africa. He was also right to imply that more needs to be done. We certainly should not rest on our laurels, but ensure that we are maximising the opportunities for UK businesses elsewhere in the world.
	The support provided to businesses by UKTI has created significant economic benefits since May 2010. Indeed, some £45.6 billion-worth of total additional
	sales have resulted from UKTI assistance. In 2011-12, UKTI support helped firms to create 36,400 jobs and secure a further 68,500 jobs. The role of UKTI is not just to maximise exports, for both large companies and SMEs in the UK, but to persuade foreign companies to invest here in the UK too. In that regard, the UK has benefited from 1,406 inward investment projects in 2011-12 in which UKTI has been involved, which have helped to create or safeguard more than 112,000 jobs in the UK. It is therefore fair to say that UKTI is making a significant contribution to driving the UK’s economic recovery.
	I want to say a little about the background—the architecture—against which UKTI operates. In early 2011, the Government published the White Paper “Trade and Investment for Growth”, which outlined our commitment to an open trading system and to removing barriers and supporting UK firms that wished to export. The Government’s “Plan for Growth”, which was published at the time of the 2011 Budget, linked the policy objectives for greater global trade to our economic aim of providing a climate that would help businesses to grow and prosper. The key objective was to encourage investment in exports as a route to a more balanced economy.
	Some of the issues that my hon. Friend has raised are particularly pertinent. It might help his constituents and others who are unaware of the opportunities that UKTI offers to know that those opportunities are posted on the UKTI website, and that companies can sign up to alerts for any opportunities that might be relevant to them. I would certainly be happy to provide him with details of how to access that information, which he can pass on to the relevant businesses in his constituency.
	My hon. Friend also raised the important issue of the Prime Minister’s appointment of trade ambassadors. I can give him an assurance that all the trade ambassadors—not just my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham)—are very significantly engaged in the countries for which they are responsible. Many of them have already made visits, and many are planning—with the missions on the ground as well as with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills—to lead trade delegations to those countries.
	It is also important to put on record that the Government are seeking a transformation of the UK’s export and inward investment performance—so much so that, in November 2011, the Prime Minister and the relevant Minister, the excellent Lord Green, launched the national export challenge, to encourage more SMEs to export. As my hon. Friend rightly pointed out, in some markets, the UK is below the EU average percentage of exporting SMEs. We want to see it achieve at least that level, if not higher. To that end, the Prime Minister has set the extremely ambitious target of getting another 100,000 companies exporting by 2020 and doubling UK exports to £1 trillion.
	However, UKTI cannot deliver the Government’s ambition to transform the UK’s export and inward investment performance alone. It is working in close co-operation with the rest of Government and particularly with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Outreach with business intermediaries such as banks, lawyers and accountants is also playing a major role. We aim to access their client bases to help businesses to expand into key markets.
	My hon. Friend also raised the important subject of marketing. He will understand the very challenging—to put it politely—macro-economic situation that we inherited, and it was absolutely right that when we came into office, we looked at every aspect of Government expenditure to ensure that UK taxpayers’ money was being spent properly and that we could make a significant inroad into the huge deficit that we inherited. That does not mean, however, that we have been unable to persuade the Cabinet Office, which is the responsible Department, to put in place marketing budgets when and where appropriate. Perhaps the best example is the “Great” campaign, which was linked to the Olympics and to our Olympic legacy. I can inform the House that that campaign has had a significant positive impact, persuading businesses based abroad to invest here and enabling our missions abroad to persuade UK companies to invest elsewhere in the world.
	Indeed, the House has played its part, too, with Members of Parliament hosting seminars in their constituencies to highlight the opportunities that exporting can offer businesses, especially to small and medium-sized enterprises. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Margot James) who has played such a significant role in engaging and encouraging MPs across the House to hold such meetings in their constituencies. If Members either here this evening or reading the debate in Hansard tomorrow are interested, I would urge them to contact my hon. Friend who will provide them with the information necessary to enable them to hold such meetings in their constituencies.
	That is not all. Last August, the Government announced additional support to help UK businesses. There will be more money available for SMEs to attend trade shows abroad, and I very much hope that the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham will access this funding. There will also be increased support available for travel on overseas missions. Substantial discounts will be available and will be offered through the Overseas Market Introduction Service, which provides targeted research to help businesses find those first
	crucial contacts in the markets. In addition, the autumn statement provided a further resource allocation of £70 million a year for the next two years.
	This package of support will play an important role in helping realise the Government’s ambitions, by building up the capacity and capability of the British Chambers of Commerce overseas, where we lag behind competitors such as the Germans. Lord Green has made this a personal crusade, and I am 100% supportive of the direction of travel. It is focused initially on 20 pilot chambers in key export markets. Once again, I very much hope that my hon. Friend’s constituents will engage with this excellent new initiative.
	Increasing the number of international trade advisers in the English regions is a key part of how the money will be spent, offering additional funds to SMEs with high-growth potential, enabling more companies successfully to export. I can inform my hon. Friend that some of these advisers are private sector employees, who are performance-related rewarded—exactly the agenda he talked about—and I think that is exactly the right direction in which to go. We hope that this additional funding will double the number of companies given financial support towards the cost of exhibiting at their first overseas trade shows; and double the support for private sector-led project teams campaigning for UK success, by enhancing inward investment support in growth markets, such as the UAE, Qatar, Kuwait and Russia. I hope that some of that inward investment will end up in my hon. Friend’s constituency. This is also about positioning the UK as the leading location of choice for European headquarters and elite global enterprises, building on the success of Tech City and developing further inward investment campaigns as well as building on the Olympic legacy.
	This has been an important debate. My hon. Friend is right to continue the work he is doing to raise the significance of the contribution that UK exports can make to our own UK economic recovery.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.